Open Access

Health-related quality of life measurement in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: review of the 2009-2014 literature

  • Fabio Arpinelli1Email author,
  • Mauro Carone2,
  • Gioacchino Riccardo1 and
  • Giorgio Bertolotti3
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine201611:5

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-016-0040-9

Received: 15 October 2015

Accepted: 5 January 2016

Published: 15 February 2016

Abstract

Background

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are frequent in the general population. These diseases can worsen the quality of life of people suffering from them, limiting their daily activities and disrupting their sleep at night. Some questionnaires to measure the impact of the diseases on the daily life of patients are available. The measurements of subjective outcomes have become a part of clinical practice, and are used very frequently in clinical trials. Our aim was to describe how data on HRQoL in asthma and COPD are reported in papers published in the medical literature.

Methods

We identified papers on the recent respiratory drugs (chemical, not biological), that reported the HRQoL measurement and that were published from 2009 to April 2014. We planned to describe data about HRQoL, and we had no intention of comparing the degree of efficacy of drugs.

Results

The most used questionnaires are the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and the Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). These tools, administered at the baseline and at the end of the study (and interim evaluations in the longer studies) allowed for the identification of improvements as perceived by the patient after the treatment, even if in some cases these improvements were limited and not clinically relevant. Subjective measurements have always been placed among the secondary endpoints and the number of patients (estimated for the main endpoint) has often statistically overestimated the result. In addition, it is clear that subjective data is normally reported, but rarely commented on.

Conclusions

There are some methodology aspects that should be discussed in more depth, for example the necessity to express variations in the subjective perception, not as p-value but as effect-size.

Keywords

Asthma, COPD Asthma quality of life questionnaire Health-related quality of life Saint George's respiratory questionnaire

Background

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are frequent in the general population. The prevalence of asthma is estimated to be between 1 and 18 % of the population in the countries where it has been studied [1], whereas COPD affects about 6 % of the adult population, with a higher prevalence in older age groups [2]. These diseases are characterised by a narrowing of the bronchi associated with chronic inflammation. However, there are some differences between asthma and COPD in terms of onset age, causal factors, clinical aspects and impact on daily life. Functional measurements are used to measure severity and reversibility of the pulmonary obstruction. However, the relationship between pulmonary obstruction, dyspnea and impact of the disease on the daily life of the patient, is not necessarily linear [3]. The subjective data obtained from the patients can be useful for supplementing clinical and instrumental data and enabling the physician to identify any change (improvements or worsening) in the state of health, as perceived by the patient, thus allowing for an adjustment of the treatment. Questionnaires do exist and have been used for decades as they can gather data, in a standardised form, about the patients’ perception of the status of the disease and/or the received medical treatments. This information, reported directly by the patient without other people’s interpretation, about his/her well-being, behaviour and feelings as regards his/her state of health and the related treatments, is defined as Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) [4]. The Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is a well known PRO. We have had available for some time questionnaires that are used for measuring HRQoL. European and USA regulatory authorities have published official guidance documents that reflect their position on this topic. The USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prepared a formal “Guidance for Industry” which describes its position on the PROs and informs the pharmaceutical industry on how it intends to review and evaluate the PRO tools that are used to support label claims [5]. The European Medicine Agency (EMA) document points out the role that the HRQoL may play in the development process of a medicinal product, by simply providing some recommendations on their use [6]. Recently, a number of new medicinal products to be used alone or in fixed combinations have been registered for the treatment of asthma and/or COPD. In many clinical studies of these drugs, HRQoL measurements were included.

Our aim was to deepen the knowledge on how the measurement of HRQoL was carried out for supporting the registration of these drugs (medicinal products of chemical and not biological origin). We planned to review the papers in order to describe and comment on the used tools, the results of the measurements and the use of the HRQoL data that were obtained. We had no intention to comment on the degree of efficacy of the medicinal products being considered.

Review

We took into consideration the respiratory drugs that were launched in the last years. We described randomised and controlled clinical trials of medicinal products developed for asthma and for COPD, published from 2009 to the spring of 2014. The year 2009 was chosen because in that year the National Health Service in England (NHS) made the decision to measure the impact, as perceived by the patient, of some therapeutic procedures [7]. Non-randomised studies, post-hoc analyses, meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews of respiratory medicinal products have not been taken into account. For each study, the design, sample size, use of tools for the measurement of PROs have been identified and the related data briefly described. No statistical analyses of any type were carried out; in fact this report consists exclusively in a description of the findings.

Thirty four articles, published in the considered period, were analysed (see Tables 1 and 2). Eleven studies were on asthma. The questionnaire used in these studies was the Asthma Quality of Life questionnaire (AQLQ). The AQLQ is a 32 items questionnaire in 4 domains (symptoms, activity limitation, emotional function and environmental stimuli). It is suitable for adult with asthma, that should respond on a 7 point scale. Psychometric tests show that a change in score of 0.5 is the smallest change that can be considered clinically important (this means that the patient appreciates the change in his/her health condition).
Table 1

Studies on asthma

Drugs

Baseline

Final score

Statistical significancea

Clinical significance

Reference

flut/form 500/20 μg

4.42 ± 0.89

5.34 ± 1.07

P = 0.036

 

Bodzenta-Lukaszyk et al. Resp Med 105 674-682 2011 [13]

flut + form 500 + 24 μg

4.57 ± 0.99

5.30 ± 1.00

flut/form250/10 μg

Not reported

Mean improvement of 0.8 in both treatment groups

ns

55 %

Bodzenta-Lukaszyk et a.l Journal of Asthma 49(10), 1060-1070, 2012 [14]

bud/form400/12 μg

57.6 % ns

flut/form combo

4.8 ± 1.1

5.5 ± 1.1

ns

Not available

Bodzenta-Lukaszyk et al. Current Medical Research and Opinion 29, 5 579-588, 2013 [15]

flut + form

4.9 ± 1.2

5.6 ± 1.0

Tio 5 μg add on

4.8 in all groups

Change of 0.1 points for both active treatments compared with placebo

ns

Not available

Kerstjens et al. Journal of Allergy Clin Immunol 128, 2 308-314, 2011 [16]

Tio 10 μg add on

Plac add on

Trial 1

   

Not achieved

Kerstjens et al. New England Journal of Medicine 367:1198-1207, 2012 [17]

Tio 5 μg/die add on

4.6 ± 1.1

5.15

Ns

plac add on

4.6 ± 1.1

5.1

Ns (p < 0.05 al week 24

Trial 2

  

Tio 5 μg/die add on

4.6 ± 1.0

5.1

plac add on

4.7 ± 1.1

4.93

Bud/formSMART

4.78

4.81

ns

Not available – measurement of Satisfaction with Asthma Treatment Questionnaire

Louis R et al. The International Journal of Clinical Practice 63, 10 1479-1488, 2009 [18]

Conventional best practice

4.78

4.82

Tio

 

5.58

P = 0.01

Not available

Peters et al. New England Journal of Medicine 363 18 1715-1726, 2010 [19]

Double glucocorticoid

5.43 ± 1.05

5.48

P = 0.38

salm

 

5.71

P < 0.001

Flut fur/vil 200/25 μg

Not available

Baseline + 0.93 ± 0.065

ns

Not available

O’Byrne et al. Eur. Resp. Journal 43 773-782, 2014 [20]

Flut fur.200 μg

 

Baseline + 0.88 ± 0.071

Flut prop.500 μg

 

Baseline + 0.90 ± 0.068

Flut. fur/vil 100/25 μg

5.35

5.85

ns

46 %

Woodcock et al. Chest 144(4), 1222-1229, 2013 [21]

flut. pro/salm 250/50 μg

5.37

5.79

 

38 %

salm 50 μg

5.175

Baseline + 0.280

ns

Not available

Bateman et al. J. Allergy Clin Immunol128, 315-322, 2011 [22]

tio 5 μg

 

Baseline + 0.131

plac

 

Baseline + 0.039

 

Not available

Adjustable bud/form

AQLQ

AQLQ

AQLQ

AQLQ

O’Connor et al. Journal of Asthma 47 217-223, 2010 [10]

Fixed bud/form

Not available

Not available

P < 0.04*

66.7 %

Adjustable bud/form

  

Nsb

63.0 %

    

61.9 %

    

No clinical difference between groups

aBetween groups

bFixed-dose regimen baseline vs end of treatment

*Adjustable dosing vs fixed dose regimen

p ≤ 0.002 vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

Table 2

Studies on COPD

Drugs

Baseline SGRQ

Final score

Statistical significancea

Clinical significance

Reference

Aclid 200 μg

45.9

-4.7 vs baseline

P = 0.013 vs plac.

49 %*

Kerwin E.M., et al. COPD patients (ACCORD COPD I). COPD 9 90-101, 2012 [23]

Aclid 400 μg

48.3

-4.5 vs baseline

P = 0.019 vs plac.

45 %

plac

45.1

- 2 vs baseline

36 %

Aclid 200 μg

46.3 ± 16.8

.-3.8 ± 1.1 vs plac

P < 0.001vs plac

56.0 %**

Jones P.W., et al. Eur Resp Journal 40 830-836, 2012 [11]

Aclid 400 μg

47.6 ± 17.7

-4.6 ± 1.1

P < 0.0001 vs

57.3 %**

plac

45.1 ± 15.8

 

plac.

41.0 %

Aclid 200 μg

48.5

-5.3 vs baseline

ns

41-6 % - 46.6 %

Gelb A.F., et al. Respiratory Medicine 107 1957-1965, 2013 [24]

Aclid 400 μg

49.8

-5.2 vs baseline

 

45.2 % - 49.1 %

Glycopyr 50 μg

46.11

39.50

P = 0.004

56.8 %

D’Urzo A., et al. Respiratory Research 12 156, 2011 [25]

Plac

46.34

42.31

 

46.3 %

P = 0.006

Glycopyr 50 μg

Not

-3.32 vs placebo

P < 0.001

54.3 %

Kerwin E., at al. European Respiratory Journal 40 1106-1114, 2012 [26]

Tio 18 μg

reported

-2.84 vs placebo

P = 0.014

59.4 %

Plac

   

50.8 %

Indac 300 μg

43

-4.7 vs placebo

P < 0.001 vs plac

Not reported

Dahl R. et al. Thorax 65 473-479, 2010 [27]

Indac 600 μg

44

-4.6 vs placebo

Form

44

-4.0 vs placebo

Plac

43

Indac 150 μg

43 ± 18.6

-5.0 vs baseline

P < 0.001

52.8 %**

Kornmann O. et al. European Respiratory Journal 37 273-279, 2011 [28]

Salm 50 μg

44. ± 18.4

-4.1 vs baseline

P < 0.001

48.6 %***

plac

44 ± 18.1

  

38.0 %

Indac 150 μg

Not reported

-3.3 vs placebo****

P < 0.001 vs plac

-

Donohue J.F. et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 182 155-162, 2010 [29]

Indac 300 μg

-2.4 vs placebo

P < 0.01 vs plac

Tio 18 μg

-1.0 vs placebo

Ns vs plac

plac

Indac 150 μg

42.3 ± 17.60

37.1 ± 0.56

P < 0.001

50.5 %

Buhl R. et al. Eur Respir J 38 797-803, 2011 [30]

Tio 18 μg

42.7 ± 18.04

39.2 ± 0.55

 

42.5 %

p ≤ 0.001

Indac 150 μg

47.9

42.3

P = 0.73

49 %

Decramer M.L. et al. Lancet Respir Med 1 524-533, 2013 [31]

Tio 18 μg

48.7

42.2

 

49 &

Tio 5 μg

Not reported

-4.7 vs baseline

P < 0.0001

49.5 %

Bateman E.D. et al. Respiratory Medicine 104, 1460-1472, 2010 [32]

P lac

-1.8 vs baseline

41.4 %

P < 0.0001

Tio 18 μg emphysema

46.7 ± 3.0

39.4 ± 2.7

ns

Not reported

Fujimoto K. et al. International Journal of COPD 6, 219-227, 2011 [33]

Tio 18 μg non emphys

35.1 ± 6.4

26.9 ± 4.6

Salm 50 μg emphysema

38.6 ± 3.5

33.0 ± 3.2

Salm 50 μg nonemphys

37.5 ± 8.5

29.3 ± 7.4

Tio 18 μg

46.1 ± 19.1

-4.5 vs baseline

P < 0.05

Not reported

Hoshino M. et al Respirology 16 95-101, 2011 [34]

Tio + Salm/flut 50/250 μg

42.7 ± 17.0

-10.2 vs baseline

Umec 62.5 μg

Not reported

-3.14 vs baseline

P < 0.001 both doses of umeclidinium vs placebo

Not reported

Trivedi R. et al. Eur Respiratory J 43 72-81, 2014 [35]

Umec 125 μg

 

-6.12 vs baseline

Plac

 

+4.75 vs baseline

Beclom/form 100/6 μg

60.4 ± 19.5

-3.75 ± 13.91

ns

25.40 %

Calverley P.M.A. et al. Respiratory Medicine 104 1858-1868, 2010 [36]

Bud/form 200/6 μg

57.2 ± 18.6

-4.28 ± 11.92

 

21.90 %

Form 12 μg

59.5 ± 20.2

-2.90 ± 13.28

 

25.30 %

Tio + bud/form

Not reported

-3.8 vs baseline

P = 0.023

49.5 %

Welte T. et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 180 741-750, 2009 [37]

Tio + plac

-1.5 vs baseline

 

40.0 %

P = 0.016

Bud/form 320/9 μg

55.9 (17.6)

-7.2 (1.18) vs bas.

ns

 

Sharafkhaneh A. et al. Respiratory Medicine 106, 2257-268 2012 [38]

Bud/form 160/9 μg

57.8 (16.7)

-5.5 (1.17) vs bas.

Form 9 μg

58.6 (16.9)

-5.9 (1.17) vs bas.

Indac/Glycopyr 110/50 μg

42.01

35.45

ns

55.5 %

Vogelmeier C.F. et al. Lancet Respir Med 1 51-60, 2013 [39]

Salm/flut 50/500 μg

42.72

36.68

 

49.1 %

Indat/Glycopyr 110/50 μg

53 (18)

43.8

glycop/indacat

57 %

Wedzicha J.A. et al. Lancet Respir Med 1 199-209, 2013 [40]

Glycopyr 50 μg

52 (18)

45.8

P = 0.0067 e

52 %

Tio 18 μg

52 (17)

46.0

P = 0.00037 vs competitors

51 %

Glycopir/indacat p = 0.055 e p = 0.051 vs competitors

Indac 150 μg + Glycopyr 50 μg

Not reported

- 6.22 (11.47)

ns

56.5 %

Vincken W. et al. Int Journal of COPD 9 215-228, 2014 [41]

Indac 150 μg

- 4.13 (10.38) vs baseline

 

46.8 % ns

Beclom/form 200/12 μg

47.0 (16.7)

-5.92

P = 0.08

45.0 %

Singh D. et al. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 14 43 2014 [42]

Flutic/salm 500/50 μg

45.2 (16.5)

-3.80

36.2 %

    

ns

Umec/Vil 62.5/25 μg

Not reported

-8.07 (0.749)

p ≤ 0.001 vs

49 %

Donohue J.F. et al. Respiratory Medicine 107 1538-1546, 2013 [43]

Umec 62.5 μg

-7.25 (0.753)

placebo

44 %

Vil25 μg

-7.75 (0.760)

 

48 %

Plac

-2.56 (0.950) vs baseline

 

34 %

Umec/Vil125/25 μg

Not reported

40.10 (0.665)

Combination

49 %

Celli B. et al Chest 145 (5) 981-991, 2014 [44]

Umec125 μg

 

43.38 (0.664)

p ≤ 0.001 vs umec e

40 %

Vil 25 μg

 

42.82 (0.681)

p <0.01 vs

41 %

Plac

 

43.69 (0.875)

vilanterol

37 %

aBetween groups

*p < 0.005 vs placebo

**p < 0.001 vs placebo

***p < 0.01

****p < 0.01 vs tiotropium

Twenty three studies were on COPD. The questionnaire they used was the Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). It is a 50 items questionnaire designed to measure impact on overall health, daily life and perceived well-being in patients with COPD. Higher scores indicate more limitations. A mean change score of −4 units is considered as clinically important.

Only 3 studies on asthma reported a change that was statistically significant (27 % of the studies), and only 2 (18 % of the studies) reported the percentage of patients who reached the clinical significance (at least 0.5 change from baseline). The clinical significance ranged between 55.0 and 66.7 % of patients. Among studies on COPD, 16 (69.5 %) reported a statistical significance and 17 (80 %) reported the percentage of patients with the clinical significance (at least −4 units from baseline). The clinical significance ranged between 21.9 and 59.4 % of patients.

Usually, the authors describe in a very short way HRQoL results, and poor details are reported.

Conclusions

A description of the literature about respiratory, non-biological medicinal products, developed in the past few years, has allowed to highlight that the PRO measurement has been often included in the studies’ protocols. This is in line with the recognition by regulatory authorities, payers and pharmaceutical companies that measurement of the patient experience with the drug is increasingly important. In all the measurements observed, the subjective data was considered a secondary endpoint. This is consistent with the endpoint hierarchy established by EMA and the FDA which sees the physiological effect produced by the study drug as a priority, and relegates the PRO to a secondary endpoint.

The choice of tools to be used meets the specifications of the reference documents. AQLQ is used with the patients with asthma, whereas the SGRQ is used with the patients with COPD. Both tools have been well documented since their initial development, and are validated and available in many languages [8, 9]. In all the studies, the time frame for the administration of the questionnaires is specified. In the shorter studies, the measurements are reported at the baseline and at the end of the study. In longer studies, there can be interim measurements. It should be noted that the short duration of a study (in particular in the COPD case) is planned to allow for functional measurements, but it could not capture the impact that the drug has on the health, as perceived by the patient. For instance, Kerwin reports, in the conclusions of his study, that a duration above 12 weeks could have allowed the patients treated with aclidinium 400 μg to reach the Minimal Clinical Important Difference (MCID) in a significantly greater percentage compared with the patients receiving placebo [10]. A further aspect for consideration is the use of the placebo treatment arm. These patients may receive rescue treatment, and often the variation in the SGRQ score obtained with these patients is important, as is the percentage of responder patients (those who reach the MCID). Another aspect noted in some studies was that the improvement reported with the SGRQ was in contrast with the bronchodilator effect. For example, Jones et al point out this aspect in the placebo arm of their study where the spirometry values decline, but the patients report a better respiratory state of health [11].

The measurements are always accompanied by information on their statistical significance. With reference to this point, we noted that more COPD than asthma studies reported a statistical significance. In other words, it seems that COPD drugs are significantly more effective than asthma drugs. Furthermore, it is to consider that a number of COPD studies foresaw the analysis versus a placebo arm, and the number of patients could be excessive for the HRQoL measurement. With reference to the clinical significance, asthma patients have a higher percentage of patients who experienced a clinically important change than COPD patients (despite the lower number of measurements). We can speculate that asthma patients perceive better the changes given by drugs than COPD patients. On the other hand, asthmatics are generally younger than COPD patients, and suffer less from other diseases (comorbidities). However, the subjective nature of the measurements should lead to some considerations on the significance of the effects produced by the treatment. Usually, the variations in the scores obtained from the questionnaires on HRQoL are assessed on an effect-size basis, since a change produced by a treatment may be statistically significant (possibly because the number of patients calculated for the main endpoint is high), but it may not be perceived as clinically significant by the patients. In general, effect-size indexes have been developed for the exact purpose to avoid making incorrect inferences, due also to high sample sizes. In other words, since the above indicated indexes seek to square the results net of the effects of the sample (number of subjects), they should not be affected by this data. The effect-size indexes allow for an evaluation of the amplitude of an effect in each research design, but there always remains the difficulty of choosing the most appropriate index and interpreting the results. Perhaps the latter is the reason why measurement results are usually reported without comments. In some cases, PRO measurement data are included in the discussion, but in many other cases, they are only briefly mentioned.

Undoubtedly, the PRO adds knowledge to the drug. Within the respiratory area, there are many medicinal products available which have demonstrated their efficacy in intervening on the two main characteristics that define asthma and COPD, i.e. bronchoconstriction and chronic inflammation. However, only some of them provide information about the outcomes of treatment which may be important to patients. This data could represent a discriminatory factor in the choice of the medicinal products to be included into a formulary. In fact, a medicinal product that is perceived as useful by the patient could have more probability to be taken (good adherence to treatment) and this would maximise the financial investment of the third party payer. Among the cited studies, one has used the Onset of Effect Questionnaire (OEQ) to measure the preference of the patient with asthma of a certain bronchodilator versus another bronchodilator in the same pharmacological category, but slower in manifesting its effects [10]. The fact that this questionnaire was not used in other studies may mean that it is not important to measure this parameter, or that the questionnaire was used in that study just to reiterate that one of the drugs was faster in manifesting its effects.

Some studies, not included in this analysis because they were published before 2009, measured the preferences of the patients regarding the inhaler used. Dalby et al cite these experiences in one article that discusses the development of an inhaler [12]. This measurement can be useful also if the intent is to provide the patient with a treatment, that, on average, he/she will consider satisfactory and therefore, presumably, be more willing to adopt.

To conclude, the subjective measurements, initially reserved for patients with very serious diseases and a limited life expectancy, have become more commonly used even with patients suffering from chronic diseases. The fact that patients with asthma and COPD can have a longer life expectancy makes the quality of those years left to live very important. It is therefore desirable that the PRO measurements be increasingly used and become part of the daily routine of clinical practice. In this perspective, tools such as the SGRQs might be considered labour-intensive requiring too long for their completion and interpretation. To this end, some other easier and simpler tools could be proposed for development.

Abbreviations

AQLQ: 

Asthma Quality of Life questionnaire

COPD: 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

EMA: 

European Medicine Agency

FDA: 

Food and Drug Administration

HRQoL: 

Health-related Quality of Life

MCID: 

minimal clinical important difference

OEQ: 

onset of effect questionnaire

PRO: 

patient-reported outcome

SGRQ: 

Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Maria Sandra Magnoni for her precious help in finding papers.

FA and GR wish to thank MC and GB for their participation in writing this manuscript without any fee.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
GSK Medical and Scientific Department
(2)
Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri, IRCCS, Pneumology Division
(3)
Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri, IRCCS, Psychology Service

References

  1. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention (updated 2012) at www.ginasthma.org. Accessed 22 Apr 2014.
  2. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (updated 2014) at www.goldcopd.org. Accessed 22 Apr 2014.
  3. Agusti A, Calverley P, Celli B, Coxson HA, Edwards LD, Lomas DA, et al. Characterisation of COPD heterogeneity in the ECLIPSE cohort. Respir Res. 2010;11:122.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JN, Scott JA, Rock E.P., Dawisha S, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes to support Medical Product Labelling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health. 2007;10(s2):125–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Products Development to Support Labeling Claims. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration 2009.Google Scholar
  6. Reflection Paper on the Regulatory Guidance for the Use of Health-related Quality of Life Measures in the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.European Medical Agency 2005 at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003637.pdf. Accessed 18 apr 2014.
  7. Worth A, Hammersley VS, Nurmatov U, Sheikh A. Systematic literature review and evaluation of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for asthma and related allergic diseases. Prim Care Respir J. 2012;21(4):455–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Juniper EF, Buist AS, Cox FM, Ferrie PJ, King DR. Validation of a standardized version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Chest. 1999;115:1265–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM, Littlejohns P. A self-complete measure of health status for chronic airflow limitation. The Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992;145:1321–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. O’Connor RD, Patrick DL, Parasuraman B, Martin P, Goldman M. Comparison of Patient-reported outcomes during treatment with adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized merered-dose inhaler versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler in patients with asthma. J Asthma. 2010;47:217–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones PW, Singh D, Bateman ED, Agusti A, Lamarca R, de Miquel G, et al. Efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients: the ATTAIN study. Eur Respir J. 2012;40:830–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalby RN, Eicher J, Zierenberg B. Development of Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler and its clinical utility in respiratory disorders. Med Devices Evid Res. 2011;4:145–55.Google Scholar
  13. Bodzenta-Lukaszyk A, Pulka G, Dymec A, Bumbacea D, McIver T, Schwab B, et al. Efficacy and safety of fluticasoene and formoterol in a single pressurized metered dose inhaler. Respir Med. 2011;105:674–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bodzenta-Lukaszyk, Buhl R, Balint B, Lomax M, Spooner K, Dissanayake S. Fluticasone /formoterol combination therapy versus Budesonide/formoterol for the treatment of asthma: a randomized, controller, non-inferiority trial of efficay and safety. J Asthma. 2012;49(10):1060–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bodzenta-Lukaszyk A, van Noord J, Schroder-Babo W, McAulay K, McIver T. Efficacy and safety profile of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy compared to its individual components administered concurrently in asthma: a randomised controller trial. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29(5):579–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerstjiens HAM, Disse B, Schroder-Babo W, Bantie TA, Gahlemann M, Sigmund R, et al. Tiotropium improves lung function in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma: a randomized controlled trial. J Allerg Clin Immunol. 2011;128, 2:308–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerstjens HAM, Engel M, Dahl R, Paggiaro P, Beck E, Vanderwalker M, et al. Tiotropium in asthma poorly controlled with standard combination therapy. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1198–207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Louis R, Joos G, Michils A, Vandenhoven G. A comparison of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and relieve therapy vs conventional best practice in asthma management. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63 10:1479–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Peters SP, Kunselman SJ, Icitovic N, Moore WC, Pascual R, Ameredes BT, et al. Tiotropium bromide step-up therapy for adult with uncontrolled asthma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363 18:1715–26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Byrne PM, Bleecker ER, Bateman ED, Busse WW, Woodcock A, Forth R, et al. Once-daily fluticasone furoate alone or combined with vilanterol in persistent asthma. Eur Respir J 2014;43:773–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Woodcock A, Bleecker ER, Lotvall J, O'Byrne PM, Bateman ED, Medley H et, et al. Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination in adult and adolescent patients with persistent asthma. Chest. 2013;144(4):1222–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Bateman ED, Kornmann O, Schmidt P, Pivovarova A, Engel M, Fabbri LM. Tiotropium is noninferior to salmeterol in maintaining improved lung function in B16-Arg/Arg patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128:315–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerwin EM, D’Urzo AD, Gelb AF, Lakkis H, Garcia Gil E, Caracta CF. Efficacy and safety of a 12-week treatment with twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients (ACCORD COPD I). COPD. 2012;9:90–101.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gelb AF, Tashkin DP, Make BJ, Zhong X, Garcai Gil E, Caracta CF. Long-term safety and efficacy of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in patients with COPD. Respir Med. 2013;107:1957–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. D’Urzo A, Ferguson GT, van Noord JA, Hirata K, Martin C, Lu Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily NVA237 in patients with moderate to severe COPD: the GLOW1 trial. Respir Res. 2011;12:156.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Kerwin E, Hebert J, Gallagher N, Martin C, Overend T, Alagappan VK, et al. Efficacy and safety of NVA237 versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with COPD: the GLOW2 study. Eur Respir J. 2012;40:1106–14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Dahl R, Chung KF, Buhl R, Magnussen H, Nonikov V, Jack D, et al. Efficacy of a new once-daily long acting β2- agonist indacaterol versus twice-daily formoterol in COPD. Thorax. 2010;65:473–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kornmann O, Dahl R, Centanni S, Dogra A, Owen R, Lassen C, et al. Once-daily indacaterol versus twice-daily salmeterol for COPD: a placebo-controlled comparison. Eur Respir J. 2011;37:273–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Donohue JF, Fogarty C, Lotvall J, Mahler DA, Worth H, Yorgancioglu A, et al. Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Indacaterol versus Tiotropium. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:155–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Buhl R, Dunn LJ, Disdier C, Lassen C, Amos C, Henley M, et al. Blinded 12-week comparison of once-daily indacaterolo and tiotropium in COPD. Eur Respir J. 2011;38:797–803.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Decramer ML, Chapman KR, Dahl R, Frith P, Devouassoux G, Fritscher C, et al. Once-daily indacaterol versus tiotropium for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (INVIGORATE): a randomized, blinded parallel- group study. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:524–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Bateman ED, Tashkin D, Siafakas N, Dahl R, Towse L, Massey D, et al. A one year trial of tiotropium Respimat plus usual therapy in COPD patients. Respir Med. 2010;104:1460–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Fujimoto K, Kitaguchi Y, Kanda S, Urushihata K, Hanaoka M, Kubo K. Comparison of efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators in emphysema dominant and emphysema nondominant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J COPD. 2011;6:219–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoshino M, Ohtawa J. Effect of adding salmeterol/fluticasone propionate to tiotropium on airway dimensions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respirology. 2011;16:95–101.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Trivedi R, Richard N, Metha R, Church A. Umeclidinium in patients with COPD: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Eur Respir J. 2014;43:72–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Calverley PMA, Kuna P, Monso’ E, Costantini M, Petruzzelli S, Sergio F, et al. Beclomethasone/formoterol in the management of COPD: a randomized controlled trial. Respir Med. 2010;104:1858–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Welte T, Miravittles M, Hernandez P, Eriksson G, Peterson S, Polanowski T, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of Budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180:741–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharafkhaneh A, Southard JG, Goldman M, Uryniak T, Martin UJ. Effect of budesonide/formoterol pMDI on COPD exacerbations: a double blind randomized study. Respir Med. 2012;106:2257–268.Google Scholar
  39. Vogelmeier CF, Bateman ED, Pallante J, Alagappan VK, D'Andrea P, Chen H, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily QVA149 compared with twice-daily salmeterol-fluticasone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ILLUMINATE): a randomized, double-blind, parallel group study. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:51–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wedzicha JA, Decramer M, Ficker JH, Niewoehner DE, Sandstrom T, Taylor AF, et al. Analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations with the dual bronchodilator QVA149 compared with glycopyrronium and tiotropium (SPARK): a randomized, double-blind, parallel group study. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:199–209.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Vincken W, Aumann J, Chen H, Henley M, McBryan D, Goyal P. Efficacy and safety of coadministration of once-daily indacaterol and glycopyrronium versus indacaterol alone in COPD patients: the GLOW6 study. Int J COPD. 2014;9:215–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh D, Nicolini G, Bindi E, Corradi M, Guastalla D, Kampschulte J, et al. Extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol compared to fluticasone/salmeterol combination therapy in COPD. BMC Pulm Med. 2014;14:43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Donohue JF, Maleki-Yazdi MR, Kilbride S, Metha R, Kalberg C, Church A. Efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg in COPD. Respir Med. 2013;107:1538–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Celli B, Crater G, Kilbride S, Metha R, Tabberer M, Kalberg C, et al. Once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg in COPD: a randomized, controlled study. Chest. 2014;14585:981–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Arpinelli et al. 2016

Advertisement