Chronic Airways Assessment Test: psychometric properties in patients with asthma and/or COPD

Background: No short patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments assess overall health status across different obstructive lung diseases. Thus, the wording of the introduction to the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT) was modified to permit use in asthma and/or COPD. This tool is called the Chronic Airways Assessment Test (CAAT). Methods: The psychometric properties of the CAAT were evaluated using baseline data from the NOVELTY study (NCT02760329) in patients with physician-assigned asthma, asthma + COPD or COPD. Analyses included exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses, differential item functioning and analysis of construct validity. Responses to the CAAT and CAT were compared in patients with asthma + COPD and those with COPD. Results: CAAT items were internally consistent (Cronbach’s alpha: > 0.7) within each diagnostic group (n = 510). Models for structural and measurement invariance were strong. Tests of differential item functioning showed small differences between asthma and COPD in individual items, but these were not consistent in direction and had minimal overall impact on the total score. The CAAT and CAT were highly consistent when assessed in all NOVELTY patients who completed both (N = 277, Pearson’s correlation coefficient: 0.90). Like the CAT itself, CAAT scores correlated moderately (0.4–0.7) to strongly (> 0.7) with other PRO measures and weakly (< 0.4) with spirometry measures. Conclusions: CAAT scores appear to reflect the same health impairment across asthma and COPD, making the CAAT an appropriate PRO instrument for patients with asthma and/or COPD. Its brevity makes it suitable for use in clinical studies and routine clinical practice. Trial registration: NCT02760329

The burden of mild asthma: Clinical burden and healthcare resource utilisation in the NOVELTY study

Background: Patients with mild asthma represent a substantial proportion of the population with asthma, yet there are limited data on their true burden of disease. We aimed to describe the clinical and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) burden of physician-assessed mild asthma. Methods: Patients with mild asthma were included from the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY; NCT02760329), a global, 3-year, real-world prospective study of patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from community practice (specialised and primary care). Diagnosis and severity were based on physician discretion. Clinical burden included physician-reported exacerbations and patient-reported measures. HCRU included inpatient and outpatient visits. Results: Overall, 2004 patients with mild asthma were included; 22.8% experienced ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 12 months, of whom 72.3% experienced ≥1 severe exacerbation. Of 625 exacerbations reported, 48.0% lasted >1 week, 27.7% were preceded by symptomatic worsening lasting >3 days, and 50.1% required oral corticosteroid treatment. Health status was moderately impacted (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score: 23.5 [standard deviation ± 17.9]). At baseline, 29.7% of patients had asthma symptoms that were not well controlled or very poorly controlled (Asthma Control Test score <20), increasing to 55.6% for those with ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year. In terms of HCRU, at least one unscheduled ambulatory visit for exacerbations was required by 9.5% of patients, including 9.2% requiring ≥1 emergency department visit and 1.1% requiring ≥1 hospital admission. Conclusions: In this global sample representing community practice, a significant proportion of patients with physician-assessed mild asthma had considerable clinical burden and HCRU