Tools for Assessing Outcomes in Studies of Chronic Cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings.

METHODS: By following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel.

RESULTS: We recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges.

CONCLUSIONS: Validated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.

Myeloproliferative neoplasm patient symptom burden and quality of life: evidence of significant impairment compared to controls

The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) including polycythaemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythaemia and primary myelofibrosis (PMF) are rare diseases contributing to significant morbidity. Symptom management is a prime treatment objective but current symptom assessment tools have not been validated compared to the general population. The MPN-symptom assessment form (MPN-SAF), a reliable and validated clinical tool to assess MPN symptom burden, was administered to MPN patients (n = 106) and, for the first time, population controls (n = 124) as part of a UK case–control study. Mean symptom scores were compared between patients and controls adjusting for potential confounders. Mean patient scores were compared to data collected by the Mayo Clinic, USA on 1,446 international MPN patients to determine patient group representativeness. MPN patients had significantly higher mean scores than controls for 25 of the 26 symptoms measured (P < 0.05); fatigue was the most common symptom (92.4% and 78.1%, respectively). Female MPN patients suffered worse symptom burden than male patients (P < 0.001) and substantially worse burden than female controls (P < 0.001). Compared to the Mayo clinic patients, MPN-UK patients reported similar symptom burden but lower satiety (P = 0.046). Patients with PMF reported the worst symptom burden (88.3%); significantly higher than PV patients (P < 0.001). For the first time we report quality of life was worse in MPN-UK patients compared with controls (P < 0.001).

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review

Objective: To summarise the findings of an updated Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people. Design: Cochrane systematic review. Multiple electronic databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to November 2013). Hand searching of references was also performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older people in any healthcare setting were included if they used a validated measure of prescribing appropriateness. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
Setting: All healthcare settings. 
Participants: Older people (≥65 years) with ≥1 long-term condition who were receiving polypharmacy (≥4 regular medicines).
Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcomes were the change in prevalence of appropriate polypharmacy and hospital admissions. Medication-related problems (eg, adverse drug reactions), medication adherence and quality of life were included as secondary outcomes.
Results: 12 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 2 cluster RCTs and 2 controlled before-and-after studies. 1 study involved computerised decision support and 11 comprised pharmaceutical care approaches across various settings. Appropriateness was measured using validated tools, including the Medication Appropriateness Index, Beers’ criteria and Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions (STOPP)/ Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START). The interventions demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate prescribing. Evidence of effect on hospital admissions and medication-related problems was conflicting. No differences in health-related quality of life were reported.
Conclusions: The included interventions demonstrated improvements in appropriate polypharmacy based on reductions in inappropriate prescribing. However, it remains unclear if interventions resulted in clinically significant improvements (eg, in terms of hospital admissions). Future intervention studies would benefit from available guidance on intervention development, evaluation and reporting to facilitate replication in clinical practice.

Cataract surgical outcomes, visual function and quality of life in four rural districts in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate cataract surgical outcomes in four rural districts of Ha Tinh Province, Vietnam. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Post-cataract surgery patients sampled randomly from facilities in four rural districts of Ha Tinh Province >3 months after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative visual acuity (VA), visual function and quality of life. RESULTS: Among 412 patients, the mean age was 74.5 ± 9.4 years, 67% (276) were female, and 377 (91.5%) received intraocular lenses (IOL). Nearly two-thirds of patients had no postoperative visits after discharge. Postoperatively, more than 40% of eyes had presenting VA <6/18, while 20% remained <6/60. The mean self-reported visual function and quality of life for all patients were 68.7 ± 23.8 and 73.8 ± 21.6, respectively. Most patients (89.5%) were satisfied with surgery and the majority (94.4%) would recommend surgery to others. One-third of patients paid ≥$US50 for surgery. In multiple regression modelling, older age (P < 0.01), intraoperative complications (P < 0.01) and failure to receive an IOL (P < 0.01) were associated with postoperative VA <6/60. CONCLUSION: Satisfaction with surgery was high, and many patients were willing to pay for their operations. Poor visual outcomes were common; however, and better surgical training is needed to reduce complications and their impact on visual outcomes. More intensive postoperative follow-up may also be beneficial. © 2011 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology © 2011 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.

Psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and emotional wellbeing for recently diagnosed cancer patients

BACKGROUND:
A cancer diagnosis may lead to significant psychological distress in up to 75% of cases. There is a lack of clarity about the most effective ways to address this psychological distress.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life (QoL) and general psychological distress in the 12-month phase following an initial cancer diagnosis.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO up to January 2011. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. Electronic searches were carried out across all primary sources of peer-reviewed publications using detailed criteria. No language restrictions were imposed.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions involving interpersonal dialogue between a 'trained helper' and individual newly diagnosed cancer patients were selected. Only trials measuring QoL and general psychological distress were included. Trials involving a combination of pharmacological therapy and interpersonal dialogue were excluded, as were trials involving couples, family members or group formats.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Trial data were examined and selected by two authors in pairs with mediation from a third author where required. Where possible, outcome data were extracted for combining in a meta-analyses. Continuous outcomes were compared using standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, using a random-effects model. The primary outcome, QoL, was examined in subgroups by outcome measurement, cancer site, theoretical basis for intervention, mode of delivery and discipline of trained helper. The secondary outcome, general psychological distress (including anxiety and depression), was examined according to specified outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS:
A total of 3309 records were identified, examined and the trials subjected to selection criteria; 30 trials were included in the review. No significant effects were observed for QoL at 6-month follow up (in 9 studies, SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.22); however, a small improvement in QoL was observed when QoL was measured using cancer-specific measures (in 6 studies, SMD 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.30). General psychological distress as assessed by 'mood measures' improved also (in 8 studies, SMD - 0.81; 95% CI -1.44 to - 0.18), but no significant effect was observed when measures of depression or anxiety were used to assess distress (in 6 studies, depression SMD 0.12; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; in 4 studies, anxiety SMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.22). Psychoeducational and nurse-delivered interventions that were administered face to face and by telephone with breast cancer patients produced small positive significant effects on QoL (in 2 studies, SMD 0.23; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.43).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The significant variation that was observed across participants, mode of delivery, discipline of 'trained helper' and intervention content makes it difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion regarding the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. It can be tentatively concluded that nurse-delivered interventions comprising information combined with supportive attention may have a beneficial impact on mood in an undifferentiated population of newly diagnosed cancer patients.