Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Mar 19;3(3):e1802.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001802.

Validity of the common cold questionnaire (CCQ) in asthma exacerbations

Affiliations

Validity of the common cold questionnaire (CCQ) in asthma exacerbations

Heather Powell et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The common cold questionnaire (CCQ) is used to discriminate those with and without a viral infection. Its usefulness in people with acute asthma is unknown. Our aim was to assess the ability of the CCQ to detect viral infection and to monitor recovery during a viral induced asthma exacerbation and confirmed by virological testing.

Methodology/principal findings: We studied subjects (> or =7 yrs) admitted to hospital with acute asthma and diagnosed as positive (n = 63), or negative to viral infection (n = 27) according to molecular and virological testing from respiratory samples. CCQ, asthma history and asthma control questionnaires were completed and repeated 4-6 weeks later. Sensitivity, specificity, and response to change of the CCQ were assessed by receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis and effect size calculation respectively. The CCQ did not discriminate between viral and non-viral infection for subjects with asthma (sensitivity = 76.2%; specificity = 29.6%). ROC analysis could not differentiate between positive or negative virus in subjects with asthma. The CCQ had a large response to change following recovery (effect size = 1.01). 39% of subjects recovering from viral exacerbation remained positive to virological testing at follow-up despite improvement in clinical symptoms. The CCQ reflected clinical improvement in these subjects, thus providing additional information to complement virological testing.

Conclusions/significance: The CCQ is a useful instrument for monitoring response to viral infection in people with asthma. Reliable differentiation between viral and non-viral asthma exacerbations was not achieved with the CCQ and requires specific virological testing. When combined with virological testing, the CCQ should be a useful outcome measure for evaluating therapies in viral-induced asthma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correlation of Common Cold Total Score and Asthma Control Score for all Subjects
Figure 2
Figure 2. Receiver Operator Curves for Common Cold Score and Virus Result.
A: CCQ (all asthma); B: CCQ (adults); C: CCQ (children); D: CCQ (excl chest symptoms).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Common Cold Questionnaire Median (IQR) Total Score for Visits 1 & 2 for Subjects with Asthma Exacerbation and Viral Respiratory Infection.
* P = 0.0001

References

    1. Nicholson KG, Kent J, Ireland DC. Respiratory viruses and exacerbations of asthma in adults. BMJ. 1993;307:982–986. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Murray C, Simpson A, Custovic A. Allergens, Viruses and Asthma Exacerbations. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2004;1:99–104. - PubMed
    1. Jackson G, Dowling H, Spiesman I, Boand A. Transmission of the common cold to volunteers under controlled conditions. Arch Intern Med. 1958;101:267–78. - PubMed
    1. Kawakita K, Scichidou T, Inoue E, Nabeta T, Kitakouji H, et al. Preventive and curative effects of acupuncture on the common cold: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Japan. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2004;12:181–188. - PubMed
    1. Barrett B, Locken K, Maberry R, Schwamman J, Brown R, et al. The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS). A new research Instrument for assessing the common cold. The Journal of Family Practice. 2002;51(3):265. - PubMed

Publication types