BACKGROUND: A substantial number of adult patients with asthma are inadequately controlled despite the availability of effective asthma treatment. Patients and physicians seem to overestimate the level of asthma control. OBJECTIVE: The current study explores whether valid differentiation is possible between asthma patients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma symptoms, on the basis of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). METHODS: In this multi-centre, cross-sectional study, patients were classified according to Global Initiative for Asthma criteria into levels of asthma symptom control based on a diary card registration. We defined Step 1 ('well controlled' asthma symptoms), Step 2 ('moderately controlled'), Step 3 ('poorly controlled') and Step 4 ('very poorly controlled'). These control steps were related with the sum score of the ACQ. RESULTS: From 108 asthma patients complete data were obtained. The Step 1 subgroup comprised 17 patients; Step 2, 12 patients; Step 3, 22 patients; and Step 4, 57 patients. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis showed that the optimal ACQ sum score cut-off value to differentiate between Step 1 and Steps 2, 3 and 4 was three points (sensitivity: 84%, specificity: 76%). For Steps 1 and 2 versus Steps 3 and 4, this was four points (sensitivity: 77%, specificity: 59%). For Steps 1, 2 and 3 versus Step 4, this was six points (sensitivity: 70%, specificity: 74%). CONCLUSION: Our results show that discrimination between asthma patients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma symptoms, based on the ACQ, is possible with a reasonable margin of test inaccuracy. Thus, the ACQ may be an important tool for health care professionals who aim to optimize the level of asthma control in their patient population.
BACKGROUND: A substantial number of adult patients with asthma are inadequately controlled despite the availability of effective asthma treatment. Patients and physicians seem to overestimate the level of asthma control. OBJECTIVE: The current study explores whether valid differentiation is possible between asthmapatients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma symptoms, on the basis of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). METHODS: In this multi-centre, cross-sectional study, patients were classified according to Global Initiative for Asthma criteria into levels of asthma symptom control based on a diary card registration. We defined Step 1 ('well controlled' asthma symptoms), Step 2 ('moderately controlled'), Step 3 ('poorly controlled') and Step 4 ('very poorly controlled'). These control steps were related with the sum score of the ACQ. RESULTS: From 108 asthmapatients complete data were obtained. The Step 1 subgroup comprised 17 patients; Step 2, 12 patients; Step 3, 22 patients; and Step 4, 57 patients. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis showed that the optimal ACQ sum score cut-off value to differentiate between Step 1 and Steps 2, 3 and 4 was three points (sensitivity: 84%, specificity: 76%). For Steps 1 and 2 versus Steps 3 and 4, this was four points (sensitivity: 77%, specificity: 59%). For Steps 1, 2 and 3 versus Step 4, this was six points (sensitivity: 70%, specificity: 74%). CONCLUSION: Our results show that discrimination between asthmapatients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma symptoms, based on the ACQ, is possible with a reasonable margin of test inaccuracy. Thus, the ACQ may be an important tool for health care professionals who aim to optimize the level of asthma control in their patient population.
Authors: Kathleen W Wyrwich; Andrea M Ireland; Prakash Navaratnam; Hendrik Nolte; Davis F Gates Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Michelle M Cloutier; Michael Schatz; Mario Castro; Noreen Clark; H William Kelly; Rita Mangione-Smith; James Sheller; Christine Sorkness; Stuart Stoloff; Peter Gergen Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Victor van der Meer; Henk F van Stel; Moira J Bakker; Albert C Roldaan; Willem J J Assendelft; Peter J Sterk; Klaus F Rabe; Jacob K Sont Journal: Respir Res Date: 2010-06-10
Authors: Lotte van den Nieuwenhof; Tjard Schermer; Marianne Heins; Joke Grootens; Petra Eysink; Ben Bottema; Chris van Weel; Patrick Bindels Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: J Mark FitzGerald; Sylvain Foucart; Stephen Coyle; John Sampalis; Denis Haine; Eliofotisti Psaradellis; R Andrew McIvor Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: José María Olaguibel; Santiago Quirce; Berta Juliá; Cristina Fernández; Ana María Fortuna; Jesús Molina; Vicente Plaza Journal: Respir Res Date: 2012-06-22
Authors: Persijn J Honkoop; Rik J B Loymans; Evelien H Termeer; Jiska B Snoeck-Stroband; Moira J Bakker; Willem J J Assendelft; Peter J Sterk; Gerben Ter Riet; Tjard R J Schermer; Jacob K Sont Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Rishi J Khusial; Jacob K Sont; Rik J B Loijmans; Jiska B Snoeck-Stroband; Pim J J Assendelft; Tjard R J Schermer; Persijn J Honkoop Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 2.871