Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Symptoms in Patients with COPD: Strengths and Limitations of Clinical Scores

  • Invited Commentary
  • Published:
Current Pulmonology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Health questionnaires are valuable tools to quantify, in an objective and standardised manner, the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on the health status of patients and on their well-being, and to track changes over time. Therefore, filling out these questionnaires allows clinicians to obtain the necessary information that can be easily related to clinical outcomes.

Recent Findings

Most importantly, symptoms’ assessment represents a very relevant part of these clinical tools when applied to patients suffering from chronic respiratory diseases. Comparing scores between visits is also indicative of the patient’s health status, as changes in quality of life are related to worse outcomes such as hospitalisation and exacerbation. However, each respiratory questionnaire may be peculiar in catching specific aspects of a similar symptom (i.e., dyspnoea); therefore, different tools are not interchangeable or comparable.

Summary

Detecting the minimal clinically important difference is a necessary evaluation procedure which affords the change in patient’s management and directs the therapeutic action towards more active treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stephens RJ, Hopwood P, Girling DJ, Machin D. Randomized trials with quality of life endpoints: are doctors’ rating of patients’ physical symptoms interchangeable with patients’ self-ratings? Qual Life Res. 1997;6(3):225–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026458604826.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jones PW. Health status measurement in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 2001;56(11):880–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax.56.11.880.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Vogelmeier CF, Criner GJ, Martinez FJ, Anzueto A, Barnes PJ, Borbeau J, et al. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive lung disease 2017 report: GOLD executive summary. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(3):1700214. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00214-2017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vitacca M, Paneroni M, Baiardi P, De Carolis V, Zampogna E, Belli S, et al. Development of a Barthel Index based on dyspnea for patients with respiratory diseases. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:1199–206. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S104376.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gupta N, Pinto LM, Morogan A, Borbeau J. The COPD assessment test: a systematic review. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(4):873–84. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00025214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nishimura K, Izumi T, Tsukino M, Oga T. Dyspnea is a better predictor of 5-year survival than airway obstruction in patients with COPD. Chest. 2002;121(5):1434–40. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.121.5.1434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee SD, Huang MS, Kang J, Lin CH, Park MJ, Oh YM, et al. The COPD assessment test (CAT) assists prediction of COPD exacerbations in high-risk patients. Respir Med. 2014;108(4):600–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2013.12.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gale N, Albarrati A, Munnery M, Tal-Singer R, Cockcroft J, Shale D. Factors associated with COPD mortality, 2 year follow-up data from the ARCADE study. Am J Crit Care Med. 2016;193:A3526 https://tinyurl.com/yb8xbn9l (accessed 29 September 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jo YS, Yoon HI, Kim DK, Yoo CG, Lee CH. Comparison of COPD Assessment Test and Clinical COPD Questionnaire to predict the risk of exacerbation. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:101–7. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S149805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rhee CK, Kim JW, Hwang YI, Lee JH, Jung KS, Lee MG, et al. Discrepancies between modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score and COPD assessment test score in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:1623–31. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S87147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim S, Oh J, Kim YI, Ban HJ, Kwon YS, Oh IJ, et al. Differences in classification of COPD group using COPD assessment test (CAT) or modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scores: a cross-sectional analyses. BMC Pulm Med. 2013;13:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2466-13-35.

  12. Jones PW, Adamek L, Nadeau G, Banik N. Comparisons of health status scores with MRC grades in COPD: implications for the GOLD 2011 classification. Eur Respir J. 2013;42(3):647–54. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00125612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smid DE, Franssen FME, Gonik M, Miravitlles M, Casanova C, Cosio BG, et al. Redefining cut-points for high symptom burden of the Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease classification in 18,577 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(12):1097.e11–1097.e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2017.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mittal R, Chhabra SK. GOLD classification of COPD: discordance in criteria for symptoms and exacerbation risk assessment. COPD. 2017;14(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2016.1230844.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Smid DE, Franssen FM, Houben-Wilke S, Vanfleteren LE, Janssen DJ, et al. Responsiveness and MCID estimates for CAT, CCQ, and HADS in patients with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation: a prospective analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(1):53–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kon SS, Canavan JL, Jones SE, Nolan CM, Clark AL, Dickson MJ, et al. Minimum clinically important difference for the COPD Assessment Test: a prospective analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(3):195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70001-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dodd JW, Hogg L, Nolan J, Jefford H, Grant A, Lord VM, et al. The COPD assessment test (CAT): response to pulmonary rehabilitation. A multicentre, prospective study. Thorax. 2011;66(5):425–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.156372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Department of Continuity of Care and Disability, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital St. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy

    Massimiliano Polastri

  2. Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Respiratory Unit, IRCCS Montescano, Montescano, Italy

    Nicolino Ambrosino

  3. Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Respiratory Unit, IRCCS Lumezzane, Lumezzane, Italy

    Michele Vitacca

  4. Department of Specialistic, Diagnostic and Experimental Medicine (DIMES), University of Bologna and University Hospital St. Orsola-Malpighi, Buliding # 15, Via Massarenti 9, 40137, Bologna, Italy

    Stefano Nava

  5. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Modena-Reggio Emilia and University Hospital Policlinic of Modena, Modena, Italy

    Enrico Maria Clini

Authors
  1. Massimiliano Polastri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolino Ambrosino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michele Vitacca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Nava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Enrico Maria Clini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Nava.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Massimiliano Polastri, Nicolino Ambrosino, Michele Vitacca, Stefano Nava and Enrico Maria Clini declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Polastri, M., Ambrosino, N., Vitacca, M. et al. Assessment of Symptoms in Patients with COPD: Strengths and Limitations of Clinical Scores. Curr Pulmonol Rep 7, 220–222 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13665-018-0217-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13665-018-0217-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation