Preliminary development of a questionnaire to measure the extra-pulmonary symptoms of severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Research into the effects of asthma treatments on the extra-pulmonary symptoms of severe asthma is limited by the absence of a suitable questionnaire. The aim was to create a questionnaire suitable for intervention studies by selecting symptoms that are statistically associated with asthma pathology and therefore may improve when pathology is reduced. METHODS: Patients attending a specialist asthma clinic completed the 65-item General Symptom Questionnaire (GSQ-65), a questionnaire validated for assessing symptoms of people with multiple medically unexplained symptoms. Lung function (FEV1%) and cumulative oral corticosteroids (OCS) calculated from maintenance dose plus exacerbations were obtained from clinic records. Pathology was represented by the two components of a principal component analysis (PCA) of FEV1% and OCS. LASSO regression was used to select symptoms that had high coefficients with these two principal components and occurred frequently in severe asthma. RESULTS: 100 patients provided data. PCA revealed two components, one where FEV1% and OCS were inversely related and another where they were directly related. LASSO regression revealed 39 symptoms with non-zero coefficients on one or more of the two principal components from which 16 symptoms were selected for the GSQ-A on the basis of magnitude of coefficient and frequency. Asthma symptoms measured by asthma control questionnaires were excluded. The GSQ-A correlated 0.33 and - 0.34 (p = 0.001) with the two principal components. CONCLUSION: The GSQ-A assesses the frequency of 16 heterogenous non-respiratory symptoms that are associated with asthma severity using the statistical combination of FEV1% and OCS

The construction and validation of the Severe Asthma Questionnaire

BACKGROUND: The USA's Food and Drug Administration's procedure for scale validation requires a documented stepwise process of qualitative and quantitative data. The aim of this paper is to provide the final quantitative validating data. METHODS: The severe asthma questionnaire (SAQ), asthma control test (ACT), MiniAQLQ, and EQ-5D-5L were completed by 160 patients attending a severe asthma clinic; 51 patients completed the SAQ on two occasions for test-retest reliability analysis. The SAQ produces two scores, an SAQ score based on the average of 16 items and a SAQ-global score from a single 100-point global quality of life scale. RESULTS: Construct validity was demonstrated through factor analysis of the 16 items, convergent validity by correlations of > 0.6 between the SAQ, SAQ-global and other questionnaires, and discriminant validity by the ability of the SAQ and SAQ-global to distinguish between different treatment levels. Test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation) was 0.93 for the SAQ and 0.93 for the SAQ-global, and the alpha coefficient for the SAQ was 0.93. CONCLUSIONS: The SAQ was developed using recommended qualitative and quantitative procedures for scale development, and can be used to gain insight into patients' perceptions of the impact of severe asthma and its treatment on their lives

Comparison of the effects of pulmonary and extra-pulmonary symptoms on health-related quality of life in patients with severe asthma

Objectives To survey the frequency of extra-pulmonary symptoms reported by a sample of patients with severe asthma, their contribution to quality of life and relationship to treatment pathways. Methods Consenting patients (N = 100) attending a severe asthma clinic completed questionnaire measures of extra-pulmonary symptoms (the General symptom Questionnaire, GSQ), pulmonary symptoms (Asthma Control Test, ACT), quality of life (the Severe Asthma Questionnaire, SAQ) and health status (EQ-5D-5L). Results A median of 21 extra-pulmonary symptoms were reported per week. GSQ correlated -0.65 with the ACT and 0.69 with the SAQ. Linear regression showed that both the ACT and GSQ were significant predictors of SAQ mean score, p < 0.001. In patients not receiving biologics, those with high cumulative OCS exposure (≥1120mg per year) had significantly worse scores (p < 0.05) on all questionnaires except the ACT and GSQ compared to those with low cumulative OCS exposure. Discussion Extra-pulmonary symptoms were common in this sample of people with severe asthma. Extra-pulmonary and pulmonary symptoms contribute equal variance to the score of HRQoL, showing that they are equally important contributors to patients’ experience of severe asthma. Extra-pulmonary symptoms are often overlooked in clinical medicine and in measures of quality of life. Participants receiving biologic treatments had lower extra-pulmonary symptoms possibly indicating that biologics reduce systemic symptoms more effectively than other treatments

Supporting self-management for patients with Interstitial Lung Diseases: Utility and acceptability of digital devices.

This is the final version. Available from Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record. Data Availability Statement: The fully de-identified research data supporting this publication are openly available as S1 Data and at 10.6084/m9. figshare.24569851.INTRODUCTION: Patients diagnosed with Interstitial Lung Diseases (ILD) use devices to self-monitor their health and well-being. Little is known about the range of devices, selection, frequency and terms of use and overall utility. We sought to quantify patients' usage and experiences with home digital devices, and further evaluate their perceived utility and barriers to adaptation. METHODS: A team of expert clinicians and patient partners interested in self-management approaches designed a 48-question cross-sectional electronic survey; specifically targeted at individuals diagnosed with ILD. The survey was critically appraised by the interdisciplinary self-management group at Royal Devon University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust during a 6-month validation process. The survey was open for participation between September 2021 and December 2022, and responses were collected anonymously. Data were analysed descriptively for quantitative aspects and through thematic analysis for qualitative input. RESULTS: 104 patients accessed the survey and 89/104 (86%) reported a diagnosis of lung fibrosis, including 46/89 (52%) idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with 57/89 (64%) of participants diagnosed >3 years and 59/89 (66%) female. 52/65(80%) were in the UK; 33/65 (51%) reported severe breathlessness medical research council MRC grade 3-4 and 32/65 (49%) disclosed co-morbid arthritis or joint problems. Of these, 18/83 (22%) used a hand- held spirometer, with only 6/17 (35%) advised on how to interpret the readings. Pulse oximetry devices were the most frequently used device by 35/71 (49%) and 20/64 (31%) measured their saturations more than once daily. 29/63 (46%) of respondents reported home-monitoring brought reassurance; of these, for 25/63 (40%) a feeling of control. 10/57 (18%) felt it had a negative effect, citing fluctuating readings as causing stress and 'paranoia'. The most likely help-seeking triggers were worsening breathlessness 53/65 (82%) and low oxygen saturation 43/65 (66%). Nurse specialists were the most frequent source of help 24/63 (38%). Conclusion: Patients can learn appropriate technical skills, yet perceptions of home-monitoring are variable; targeted assessment and tailored support is likely to be beneficial.Health Education Englan

Patient perspectives on home-spirometry in interstitial lung disease: a qualitative co-designed study.

This is the final version. Available from BMJ Publishing via the DOI in this record. Data availability statement: Data are available upon reasonable request. Deidentified participant data, thematic analysis and coding system will be made available in response to reasonable request made to the corresponding author. We will seek approval from our governance team and patient research partners advisory board.BACKGROUND: Opportunities for home-monitoring are increasing exponentially. Home- spirometry is reproducible and reliable in interstitial lung disease (ILD), yet patients' experiences are not reported. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with ILDs, maintaining health-related quality-of-life is vital. We report our findings from a codesigned, qualitative study capturing the perspectives and experiences of patients using home-spirometry in a UK regional ILD National Health Service England (NHSE) commissioned service. METHODS: Patients eligible for home-spirometry as routine clinical care, able to give consent and able to access a smart phone were invited to participate. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted at serial time points (baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months), recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: We report on the experiences of 10 recruited patients (8 males; median age 66 years, range 50-82 years; 7 diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, 3 other ILDs) who generally found spirometry convenient and easy to use, but their relationships with forced vital capacity results were complex. Main themes emerging were: (1) anticipated benefits-to identify change, trigger action and aid understanding of condition; (2) needs-clinical oversight and feedback, understanding of results, ownership, need for data and a need 'to know'; (3) emotional impact-worry, reassurance, ambivalence/conflicting feelings, reminder of health issues, indifference; (4) ease of home-spirometry-simplicity, convenience and (5) difficulties with home-spirometry-technical issues, technique, physical effort. CONCLUSION: Home-spirometry has many benefits, but in view of the potential risks to psychological well-being, must be considered on an individual basis. Informed consent and decision-making are essential and should be ongoing, acknowledging potential limitations as well as benefits. Healthcare support is vital.National Institute for Health Researc

Moving towards patient-centred outcomes: the Severe Asthma Questionnaire.

There is a need for more comprehensive measures of quality of life in severe asthma and the Severe asthma Questionnaire provides a validated patient-centred core outcome measure for clinicians