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
Review
. 2009 Jun;135(6):1610-1618.
doi: 10.1378/chest.08-1190. Epub 2009 May 15.

Determination of the minimal clinically important difference scores for the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory symptom scale in two populations of patients with cystic fibrosis and chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway infection

Affiliations
Review

Determination of the minimal clinically important difference scores for the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory symptom scale in two populations of patients with cystic fibrosis and chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway infection

Alexandra L Quittner et al. Chest. 2009 Jun.

Abstract

Background: The Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) is a validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) containing both generic scales and scales specific to cystic fibrosis (CF). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) score for a PRO corresponds to the smallest clinically relevant change a patient can detect. MCID scores for the CFQ-R respiratory symptom (CFQ-R-Respiratory) scale were determined using data from two 28 day, open-label, tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) studies in patients with CF and chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway infection. At study enrollment, patients in the study 1-exacerbation had symptoms indicative of pulmonary exacerbation (n = 84; < 14 years of age, 31 patients; > or = 14 years of age, 53 patients); patients in study 2-stable had stable respiratory symptoms (n = 140; < 14 years of age, 14 patients; > or = 14 years, 126 patients).

Methods: The anchor-based method utilized a global rating-of-change questionnaire (GRCQ) that assessed patients' perceptions of change in their respiratory symptoms after TIS treatment. The mean change from baseline CFQ-R-Respiratory scores were mapped onto the GRCQ to estimate the MCID. The two distribution-based methods were as follows: (1) 0.5 SD of mean change in CFQ-R-Respiratory scores (baseline to end of TIS treatment); and (2) 1 SEM for baseline CFQ-R-Respiratory scores. Triangulation of these three estimates defined the MCIDs.

Results: MCID scores were larger for patients in study 1-exacerbation (8.5 points) than for those in study 2-stable (4.0 points), likely reflecting differences in patient disease status (exacerbation/stable) between these studies.

Conclusions: Patient benefit from new and current CF therapies can be evaluated using changes in CFQ-R-Respiratory scores. Using the MCID provides a systematic way to interpret these changes, and facilitates the identification of CF treatments that improve both symptoms and physiologic variables, potentially leading to better treatment adherence and clinical outcomes. Trial registration (study 1-exacerbation): Australian-New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: ACTRN 12605000602628 Trial registration (study 2-stable): ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00104520.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Correlations between efficacy measures: data from individual patients. Change in CFQ-R-Respiratory scores vs the percentage change in FEV1 (in liters) after TIS treatment (day 28) is shown for study 1-exacerbation (top left, A) and study 2-stable (bottom left, C). Change in CFQ-R-Respiratory scores vs GRCQ respiratory functioning scores after TIS treatment (day 28) is shown for study 1-exacerbation (top right, B) and study 2-stable (bottom right, D). Each circle represents data from a single patient. Pearson correlation coefficients are shown. The GRCQ change categories are represented by gray and white stripes (top right, B, and bottom right, D).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Goss CH, Quittner AL. Patient-reported outcomes in cystic fibrosis. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2007;4:378–386. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Turner RR, Quittner AL, Parasuraman BM, et al. Patient-reported outcomes: instrument development and selection issues. Value Health. 2007;10(suppl):S86–S93. - PubMed
    1. Abbott J, Gee L. Quality of life in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis: implications for optimizing treatments and clinical trial design. Pediatr Drugs. 2005;5:41–56. - PubMed
    1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, et al. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:349–362. - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH. Making sense of quality-of-life data. Med Care. 2000;38:175–179. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Associated data

Grants and funding