Development and initial validation of the bronchiectasis exacerbation and symptom tool (BEST)

BACKGROUND: Recurrent bronchiectasis exacerbations are related to deterioration of lung function, progression of the disease, impairment of quality of life, and to an increased mortality. Improved detection of exacerbations has been accomplished in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease through the use of patient completed diaries. These tools may enhance exacerbation reporting and identification. The aim of this study was to develop a novel symptom diary for bronchiectasis symptom burden and detection of exacerbations, named the BEST diary. METHODS: Prospective observational study of patients with bronchiectasis conducted at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee. We included patients with confirmed bronchiectasis by computed tomography, who were symptomatic and had at least 1 documented exacerbation of bronchiectasis in the previous 12\u2009months to participate. Symptoms were recorded daily in a diary incorporating cough, sputum volume, sputum colour, dyspnoea, fatigue and systemic disturbance scored from 0 to 26. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included in the study. We identified 29 reported (treated exacerbations) and 23 unreported (untreated) exacerbations over 6-month follow-up. The BEST diary score showed a good correlation with the established and validated questionnaires and measures of health status (COPD Assessment Test, r =\u20090.61, p =\u20090.0037, Leicester Cough Questionnaire, r =\u2009-\u20090.52,p =\u20090.0015, St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire, r =\u20090.61,p <\u20090.0001 and 6\u2009min walk test, r =\u2009-\u20090.46,p =\u20090.037). The mean BEST score at baseline was 7.1 points (SD 2.2). The peak symptom score during exacerbation was a mean of 16.4 (3.1), and the change from baseline to exacerbation was a mean of 9.1 points (SD 2.5). Mean duration of exacerbations based on time for a return to baseline symptoms was 15.3\u2009days (SD 5.7). A minimum clinically important difference of 4 points is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The BEST symptom diary has shown concurrent validity with current health questionnaires and is responsive at onset and recovery from exacerbation. The BEST diary may be useful to detect and characterise exacerbations in bronchiectasis clinical trials

"The missing ingredient":The patient perspective of health related quality of life in bronchiectasis: a qualitative study

Abstract Background Bronchiectasis is a heterogeneous disease which affects quality of life. Measuring symptoms and quality of life has proved challenging and research is limited by extrapolation of questionnaires and treatments from other diseases. The objective of this study was to identify the major contributors to quality of life in bronchiectasis and to evaluate existing health related quality of life questionnaires in bronchiectasis. Methods Eight adults with bronchiectasis participated in one to one semi-structured interviews. These were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to identify core themes relevant to disease burden and impact. Participant views on current health related quality of life questionnaires were also surveyed. Results Bronchiectasis symptoms are highly individual. Core themes identified were symptom burden, symptom variation, personal measurement, quality of life and control of symptoms. Themes contributing to quality of life were: social embarrassment, sleep disturbance, anxiety and modification of daily and future activities. Evaluation of 4 existing questionnaires established their individual strengths and weaknesses. A synthesis of the participants’ perspective identified desirable characteristics to guide future tool development. Conclusions: This qualitative study has identified core themes associated with symptoms and quality of life in bronchiectasis. Current treatments and quality of life tools do not fully address or capture the burden of disease in bronchiectasis from the patients’ perspective

A new method for determining physician decision thresholds using empiric, uncertain recommendations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The concept of risk thresholds has been studied in medical decision making for over 30 years. During that time, physicians have been shown to be poor at estimating the probabilities required to use this method. To better assess physician risk thresholds and to more closely model medical decision making, we set out to design and test a method that derives thresholds from actual physician treatment recommendations. Such an approach would avoid the need to ask physicians for estimates of patient risk when trying to determine individual thresholds for treatment. Assessments of physician decision making are increasingly relevant as new data are generated from clinical research. For example, recommendations made in the setting of ocular hypertension are of interest as a large clinical trial has identified new risk factors that should be considered by physicians. Precisely how physicians use this new information when making treatment recommendations has not yet been determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We derived a new method for estimating treatment thresholds using ordinal logistic regression and tested it by asking ophthalmologists to review cases of ocular hypertension before expressing how likely they would be to recommend treatment. Fifty-eight physicians were recruited from the American Glaucoma Society. Demographic information was collected from the participating physicians and the treatment threshold for each physician was estimated. The method was validated by showing that while treatment thresholds varied over a wide range, the most common values were consistent with the 10-15% 5-year risk of glaucoma suggested by expert opinion and decision analysis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This method has advantages over prior means of assessing treatment thresholds. It does not require physicians to explicitly estimate patient risk and it allows for uncertainty in the recommendations. These advantages will make it possible to use this method when assessing interventions intended to alter clinical decision making.</p