Clinical cough IV:what is the minimal important difference for the Leicester Cough Questionnaire?

BACKGROUND: The Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) is a valid, reproducible, responsive self-reported cough-specific health status measure. It has been used to assess overall efficacy of treatments for cough, but its threshold for clinical significance, or patient importance, is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the minimal important difference (MID) of the LCQ for patients with chronic cough; this is the smallest change in quality-of-life score considered to be clinically meaningful. METHODS: The LCQ MID was first estimated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts who reviewed two cases of chronic cough. It was subsequently determined using a standardized method. Fifty-two patients with chronic cough of more than 8 weeks' duration attending a respiratory outpatient clinic were recruited. Participants completed the LCQ at initial evaluation and repeated the LCQ with four Global Rating of Change Questionnaires (GRCQ) more than 2 months later. The LCQ total score ranges from 3 to 21 and from 1 to 7 for physical, psychological and social domains; a higher score indicates a better health-related quality of life. The GRCQ, a 15-point scale scored between +7 (a great deal better) and -7 (a great deal worse), was used to record patient ratings of change in cough symptoms. The MID was defined as the change in LCQ health status corresponding to a small change in the GRCQ score. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) LCQ MID corresponding to a small change in the GRCQ score was 1.3 (3.2); the MIDs for domains were as follows: physical 0.2 (0.8), social 0.2 (1.1) and psychological 0.8 (1.5). This MID for LCQ total score was similar to that determined by the expert panel. The global rating of change scores correlated significantly with the change in LCQ total and domain scores (r=0.4-0.5; p<0.005). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that the LCQ MID is 1.3. The LCQ MID should aid clinicians and researchers to make meaningful interpretations of health-related quality-of-life data relating to chronic cough.

Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in patients with airways disease.

BACKGROUND: Case reports and case series have suggested an association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and airways disease, but there are no data demonstrating a higher prevalence of IBD among patients with airways disease. Furthermore, no consistent radiological, pulmonary or pathological abnormalities have been demonstrated in patients with both conditions. AIMS: To determine the prevalence of IBD among patients with airways disease and to evaluate clinical and pathophysiological features. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of outpatients with airways disease over a 10-year period. RESULTS: IBD was four times more prevalent among patients with airways disease compared with published local IBD prevalence [Odds Ratio 4.26, 95% CI 1.48, 11.71, p=0.006; Crohn's disease OR 5.96, 95% CI 1.94, 18.31, p=0.002 and ulcerative colitis OR 4.21, 95% CI 1.71, 10.41, p=0.001]. IBD was more frequent in all types of airways disease except asthma; the association was particularly strong for conditions associated with productive cough. All except 1 patient had established IBD before the onset of respiratory symptoms. There were no obvious radiological differences between ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease cases. There was a trend for a higher lymphocyte count (despite a tendency to lower blood lymphocyte count) but lower sputum neutrophil count in patients with Crohn's disease compared with ulcerative colitis. There were no significant differences in physiological measurements of pulmonary function between the two types of IBD. CONCLUSION: Our findings support an association between airways disease and inflammatory bowel disease, particularly non-asthmatic airways disease with productive cough.

The Leicester Cough Monitor: preliminary validation of an automated cough detection system in chronic cough.

Chronic cough is a common condition that presents to both primary and secondary care. Assessment and management are hampered by the absence of well-validated outcome measures. The present study comprises the validation of the Leicester Cough Monitor (LCM), an automated sound-based ambulatory cough monitor. Cough frequency was measured with the LCM and compared with coughs and other sounds counted manually over 2 h of a 6-h recording by two observers in nine patients with chronic cough in order to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the LCM. Automated cough frequency was also compared with manual counts from one observer in 15 patients with chronic cough and eight healthy subjects. All subjects underwent 6-h recordings. A subgroup consisting of six control and five patients with stable chronic cough underwent repeat automated measurements > or = 3 months apart. A further 50 patients with chronic cough underwent 24-h automated cough monitoring. The LCM had a sensitivity and specificity of 91 and 99%, respectively, for detecting cough and a false-positive rate of 2.5 events x h(-1). Mean+/-SEM automated cough counts x patient x h(-1) was 48+/-9 in patients with chronic cough and 2+/-1 in the control group (mean difference 46 counts x patient x h(-1); 95% confidence interval (CI) 20-71). The automated cough counts were repeatable (intra-subject SD 11.4 coughs x patient x h(-1); intra-class correlation coefficient 0.9). The cough frequency in patients undergoing 24-h automated monitoring was 19 coughs x patient x h(-1); daytime (08:00-22:00 h) cough frequency was significantly greater than overnight cough frequency (25 versus 10 coughs x patient x h(-1); mean difference 15 coughs x patient x h(-1), 95% CI 8-22). The Leicester Cough Monitor is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to assess 24-h cough frequency in patients with cough. It should be a useful tool to assess patients with cough in clinical trials and longitudinal studies.

Evaluation of an indigenously manufactured rapid immunochromatographic test for detection of HBsAg.

A 'rapid' one step immunochromatographic, visually read, antigen capture assay--the "HEPACARD" (J Mitra & Co. Ltd., New Delhi, India) used for rapid screening of HBsAg was evaluated. Thousand consecutive sera sent to our laboratory for the purpose of HBsAg screening were tested by this device and by a third generation enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Auszyme Monoclonal, Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, Illinois) or an automated Axsym microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA) (Axsym HBsAg V2, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Chicago, Illinois, ISA). Hepacard showed a sensitivity of 79% (CU: 57.3-92%) and specificity of 98.9% (CI: 97.9-99.4%) when compared to the findings by the third generation EIA assays. This study suggested that this particular rapid HBsAg test results have to be confirmed by either an EIA or MEIA where the facility exists. The test may be used only in a small hospital setting where the facilities for enzyme immuno assays do not exist.