Cargando…
Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study
The association between clinically relevant changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has rarely been investigated. Using CRYSTAL, a 12-week open-label study in symptomatic, nonfrequently exa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
European Respiratory Society
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387992/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30815470 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00243-2018 |
_version_ | 1783397677883457536 |
---|---|
author | Kostikas, Konstantinos Greulich, Timm Mackay, Alexander J. Lossi, Nadine S. Aalamian-Mattheis, Maryam Nunez, Xavier Pagano, Veronica A. Patalano, Francesco Clemens, Andreas Vogelmeier, Claus F. |
author_facet | Kostikas, Konstantinos Greulich, Timm Mackay, Alexander J. Lossi, Nadine S. Aalamian-Mattheis, Maryam Nunez, Xavier Pagano, Veronica A. Patalano, Francesco Clemens, Andreas Vogelmeier, Claus F. |
author_sort | Kostikas, Konstantinos |
collection | PubMed |
description | The association between clinically relevant changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has rarely been investigated. Using CRYSTAL, a 12-week open-label study in symptomatic, nonfrequently exacerbating patients with moderate COPD, we assessed at baseline the correlations between several PROs (Baseline Dyspnoea Index, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)), and between FEV(1) and PROs. Associations between clinically relevant responses in FEV(1), CAT, CCQ and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) at week 12 were also assessed. Using data from 4324 patients, a strong correlation was observed between CAT and CCQ (r(s)=0.793) at baseline, with moderate or weak correlations between other PROs, and no correlation between FEV(1) and any PRO. At week 12, 2774 (64.2%) patients were responders regarding TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 583 (13.5%) responding using all three measures. In comparison, 3235 (74.8%) were responders regarding FEV(1), TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 307 (7.1%) responding concerning all four parameters. Increases in lung function were accompanied by clinically relevant improvements of PROs in a minority of patients. Our results also suggest that PROs are not interchangeable. Thus, the observed treatment success in a clinical trial may depend on the selected parameters. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6387992 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | European Respiratory Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63879922019-02-27 Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study Kostikas, Konstantinos Greulich, Timm Mackay, Alexander J. Lossi, Nadine S. Aalamian-Mattheis, Maryam Nunez, Xavier Pagano, Veronica A. Patalano, Francesco Clemens, Andreas Vogelmeier, Claus F. ERJ Open Res Original Articles The association between clinically relevant changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has rarely been investigated. Using CRYSTAL, a 12-week open-label study in symptomatic, nonfrequently exacerbating patients with moderate COPD, we assessed at baseline the correlations between several PROs (Baseline Dyspnoea Index, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)), and between FEV(1) and PROs. Associations between clinically relevant responses in FEV(1), CAT, CCQ and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) at week 12 were also assessed. Using data from 4324 patients, a strong correlation was observed between CAT and CCQ (r(s)=0.793) at baseline, with moderate or weak correlations between other PROs, and no correlation between FEV(1) and any PRO. At week 12, 2774 (64.2%) patients were responders regarding TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 583 (13.5%) responding using all three measures. In comparison, 3235 (74.8%) were responders regarding FEV(1), TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 307 (7.1%) responding concerning all four parameters. Increases in lung function were accompanied by clinically relevant improvements of PROs in a minority of patients. Our results also suggest that PROs are not interchangeable. Thus, the observed treatment success in a clinical trial may depend on the selected parameters. European Respiratory Society 2019-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6387992/ /pubmed/30815470 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00243-2018 Text en Copyright ©ERS 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Kostikas, Konstantinos Greulich, Timm Mackay, Alexander J. Lossi, Nadine S. Aalamian-Mattheis, Maryam Nunez, Xavier Pagano, Veronica A. Patalano, Francesco Clemens, Andreas Vogelmeier, Claus F. Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study |
title | Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study |
title_full | Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study |
title_fullStr | Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study |
title_full_unstemmed | Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study |
title_short | Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study |
title_sort | treatment response in copd: does fev(1) say it all? a post hoc analysis of the crystal study |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387992/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30815470 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00243-2018 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kostikaskonstantinos treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT greulichtimm treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT mackayalexanderj treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT lossinadines treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT aalamianmattheismaryam treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT nunezxavier treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT paganoveronicaa treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT patalanofrancesco treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT clemensandreas treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy AT vogelmeierclausf treatmentresponseincopddoesfev1sayitallaposthocanalysisofthecrystalstudy |