Validation of a visual analog scale for assessing cough severity in patients with chronic cough

Allison Martin Nguyen, Elizabeth D Bacci, Margaret Vernon, Surinder S Birring, Carmen La Rosa, David Muccino, Jonathan Schelfhout, Allison Martin Nguyen, Elizabeth D Bacci, Margaret Vernon, Surinder S Birring, Carmen La Rosa, David Muccino, Jonathan Schelfhout

Abstract

Introduction: Patients with chronic cough experience considerable burden. The cough severity visual analog scale (VAS) records patients' assessment of cough severity on a 100-mm linear scale ranging from "no cough" (0 mm) to "worst cough" (100 mm). Although cough severity scales are widely used in clinical practice and research, their use in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough has not been formally validated.

Methods: This analysis includes data from a phase 2b randomized controlled trial of the P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant for treatment of refractory or unexplained chronic cough (NCT02612610). Cough severity VAS scores were assessed at baseline and Weeks 4, 8, and 12. The cough severity VAS was validated using several outcomes, including the Cough Severity Diary (CSD), Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), patient global impression of change (PGIC) scale, and objective cough frequency. Validation metrics included test-retest reliability, convergent and known-groups validity, responsiveness, and score interpretation (i.e., clinically meaningful change threshold).

Results: The analysis included 253 patients (median age, 61.0 years; females, 76%). Test-retest reliability of the cough severity VAS was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.51). The cough severity VAS had acceptable convergent validity with other related measures (Pearson r of 0.53 and -0.41 for CSD and LCQ total scores, respectively; p < 0.0001 for each). Known-groups validity was supported by significant differences in mean cough severity VAS scores across severity groups defined using CSD, LCQ, and cough frequency tertiles. A large effect size was observed in patients with the greatest improvements in PGIC (Cohen d = -1.8). A ⩾ 30-mm reduction in the cough severity VAS was estimated as a clinically meaningful change threshold for clinical trials in chronic cough.

Conclusions: The cough severity VAS is a valid and responsive measure. A cough severity VAS reduction of ⩾ 30 mm can discriminate clinically meaningful changes in chronic cough severity in clinical studies.

Keywords: Cough Severity Diary; Leicester Cough Questionnaire; clinically meaningful change; cough monitoring; idiopathic cough; minimal important difference; objective cough frequency; patient-reported outcomes; responder threshold.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AMN, CLR, DM, and JS are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and may hold stock or stock options in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. EDB is an employee of Evidera, which provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, medical device, and related organizations. In her salaried position, she works with a variety of companies and organizations and is precluded from receiving payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered. Evidera received funding from Merck to participate in the study and the development of this manuscript. MV reports nonfinancial support from Merck and personal fees from Evidera during the conduct of the study. SSB reports grants from Merck; personal fees for advisory board work from Bayer, Bellus, GSK, Menlo, Merck, Nocion, Sanofi, and Shionogi; and reimbursement for travel expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Responsiveness of cough severity VAS change scores by (a) PGIC category at Week 4 and (b) ⩾ 30% vs. 

References

    1. Irwin RS, French CL, Chang AB, et al. Classification of cough as a symptom in adults and management algorithms: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2018; 153: 196–209.
    1. Morice AH, Millqvist E, Bieksiene K, et al. ERS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in adults and children. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901136.
    1. Song WJ, Chang YS, Faruqi S, et al. The global epidemiology of chronic cough in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 1479–1481.
    1. Arinze JT, de Roos EW, Karimi L, et al. Prevalence and incidence of, and risk factors for chronic cough in the adult population: the Rotterdam Study. ERJ Open Res 2020; 6: 00300-2019.
    1. Çolak Y, Nordestgaard BG, Laursen LC, et al. Risk factors for chronic cough among 14,669 individuals from the general population. Chest 2017; 152: 563–573.
    1. Chamberlain SA, Garrod R, Douiri A, et al. The impact of chronic cough: a cross-sectional European survey. Lung 2015; 193: 401–408.
    1. French CL, Crawford SL, Bova C, et al. Change in psychological, physiological, and situational factors in adults after treatment of chronic cough. Chest 2017; 152: 547–562.
    1. Kang S-Y, Won H-K, Lee SM, et al. Impact of cough and unmet needs in chronic cough: a survey of patients in Korea. Lung 2019; 197: 635–639.
    1. Koskela HO, Lätti AM, Pekkanen J. Risk factors for repetitive doctor’s consultations due to cough: a cross-sectional study in a Finnish employed population. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e030945.
    1. Koskela HO, Lätti AM, Purokivi MK. Long-term prognosis of chronic cough: a prospective, observational cohort study. BMC Pulm Med 2017; 17: 146.
    1. Yousaf N, Montinero W, Birring SS, et al. The long term outcome of patients with unexplained chronic cough. Respir Med 2013; 107: 408–412.
    1. McGarvey L, Gibson PG. What is chronic cough? Terminology. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019; 7: 1711–1714.
    1. Smith JA, Kitt MM, Morice AH, et al. Gefapixant, a P2X3 receptor antagonist, for the treatment of refractory or unexplained chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group, phase 2b trial. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 775–785.
    1. Smith JA, Kitt MM, Butera P, et al. Gefapixant in two randomised dose-escalation studies in chronic cough. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901615.
    1. Smith J, Allman D, Badri H, et al. The neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist orvepitant is a novel antitussive therapy for chronic refractory cough: results from a phase 2 pilot study (VOLCANO-1). Chest 2020; 157: 111–118.
    1. Vernon M, Kline Leidy N, Nacson A, et al. Measuring cough severity: perspectives from the literature and from patients with chronic cough. Cough 2009; 5: 5.
    1. Birring SS, Spinou A. How best to measure cough clinically. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2015; 22: 37–40.
    1. Spinou A, Birring SS. An update on measurement and monitoring of cough: what are the important study endpoints? J Thorac Dis 2014; 6(Suppl. 7): S728–S734.
    1. Cho PSP, Birring SS, Fletcher HV, et al. Methods of cough assessment. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019; 7: 1715–1723.
    1. Birring SS, Prudon B, Carr AJ, et al. Development of a symptom specific health status measure for patients with chronic cough: Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ). Thorax 2003; 58: 339–343.
    1. French CT, Irwin RS, Fletcher KE, et al. Evaluation of a cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. Chest 2002; 121: 1123–1131.
    1. Vernon M, Kline Leidy N, Nacson A, et al. Measuring cough severity: development and pilot testing of a new seven-item cough severity patient-reported outcome measure. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2010; 4: 199–208.
    1. Martin Nguyen A, Bacci E, Dicpinigaitis P, et al. Quantitative measurement properties and score interpretation of the Cough Severity Diary in patients with chronic cough. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2020; 14: 1753466620915155.
    1. Birring SS, Brew J, Kilbourn A, et al. Rococo study: a real-world evaluation of an over-the-counter medicine in acute cough (a multicentre, randomised, controlled study). BMJ Open 2017; 7: e014112.
    1. Lee KK, Matos S, Evans DH, et al. A longitudinal assessment of acute cough. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 187: 991–997.
    1. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155–163.
    1. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 2012; 24: 69–71.
    1. Martin Nguyen A, Muccino D, Birring S, et al. Defining minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in chronic cough: analyses of objective cough counts from a phase 2 randomized controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2019; 143(Suppl.): AB169.
    1. McGarvey L, Birring S, Morice A, et al. Late breaking abstract-two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of gefapixant, a P2X3 receptor antagonist, in refractory or unexplained chronic cough (COUGH-1 and COUGH-2). Eur Respir J 2020; 56(Suppl. 64): 3800.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
    1. Decalmer SC, Webster D, Kelsall AA, et al. Chronic cough: how do cough reflex sensitivity and subjective assessments correlate with objective cough counts during ambulatory monitoring? Thorax 2007; 62: 329–334.
    1. Brightling CE, Monterio W, Green RH, et al. Induced sputum and other outcome measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: safety and repeatability. Respir Med 2001; 95: 999–1002.
    1. Koo H-K, Jeong I, Kim J-H, et al. Development and validation of the COugh Assessment Test (COAT). Respirology 2019; 24: 551–557.
    1. Zhan W, Zhang L, Jiang M, et al. A new simple score of chronic cough: cough evaluation test. BMC Pulm Med 2020; 20: 68.
    1. Boulet LP, Coeytaux RR, McCrory DC, et al. Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2015; 147: 804–814.
    1. Eccles R. The powerful placebo effect in cough: relevance to treatment and clinical trials. Lung 2020; 198: 13–21.
    1. Bird SB, Dickson EW. Clinically significant changes in pain along the visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38: 639–643.
    1. Garza AG, Wyrwich KW. Health utility measures and the standard gamble. Acad Emerg Med 2003; 10: 360–363.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться