Patient perception on the effectiveness of guideline-based treatment for chronic cough

<bold>Background:</bold> Current ERS/ACCP guidelines recommend a range of treatments for chronic cough (CC), but it is unclear how effective these are at improving subjective cough outcome in clinical practice. <bold>Objective:</bold> To evaluate the effectiveness of guideline recommended treatment for CC on patient reported outcomes (PROs). <bold>Methods:</bold> Prospective observational single center cohort study. Treatments were based on recent ERS guideline. CC assessments included Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), cough severity visual analogue scale (VAS), and patient perception of treatment response using the Global Rating of Change (GROC). <bold>Results:</bold> 69 patients with CC (49 females; mean (S.D) age, 55.7±14.5yrs, cough duration 7yrs, VAS 62.33mm(22.96), LCQ 10.55(3.36)) were recruited. 33 patients reported no benefit, while 36 patients reported important improvement on the GROC. Of these, 10 reported an improvement between a ‘tiny bit better’ and ‘somewhat better’. 26 patients scored between ‘moderately better’ and ‘a very great deal better’. Mean LCQ change varied (0.35 to 9.85), VAS scores ranged (−1.0mm to -58.0mm). Mean values and responder groups achieving MID for LCQ and VAS across GROC responses are reported. <bold>Conclusions:</bold> Guideline-based treatments improved cough PROs in only half the patients with CC. The magnitude of effect was highly variable across GROC items but higher than MID thresholds were observed for ‘moderately better’ or greater. <fig><object-id>erj;64/suppl_68/PA330/F1</object-id><object-id>F1</object-id><object-id>F1</object-id><graphic></graphic></fig>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-09-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2024.pa330
Primary Topic
Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Patient perception on the effectiveness of guideline-based treatment for chronic cough

John A. Smith, Jennifer Wattie, Roma Sehmi, Caitlin Obminski et al.
Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
article

Patient perception on the effectiveness of guideline-based treatment for chronic cough

John A. Smith, Jennifer Wattie, Roma Sehmi, Caitlin Obminski, Gail M. Gauvreau, Sue Beaudin, Paul M. O’Byrne, Karen Howie, Gordon Guyatt, Elena Kum, Lesley Wiltshire, Imran Satia, Danica Brister, Nermin Diab, Mustafaa Wahab, Kieran J. Killian, Ana Oliviera
article en

Abstract

<bold>Background:</bold> Current ERS/ACCP guidelines recommend a range of treatments for chronic cough (CC), but it is unclear how effective these are at improving subjective cough outcome in clinical practice. <bold>Objective:</bold> To evaluate the effectiveness of guideline recommended treatment for CC on patient reported outcomes (PROs). <bold>Methods:</bold> Prospective observational single center cohort study. Treatments were based on recent ERS guideline. CC assessments included Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), cough severity visual analogue scale (VAS), and patient perception of treatment response using the Global Rating of Change (GROC). <bold>Results:</bold> 69 patients with CC (49 females; mean (S.D) age, 55.7±14.5yrs, cough duration 7yrs, VAS 62.33mm(22.96), LCQ 10.55(3.36)) were recruited. 33 patients reported no benefit, while 36 patients reported important improvement on the GROC. Of these, 10 reported an improvement between a ‘tiny bit better’ and ‘somewhat better’. 26 patients scored between ‘moderately better’ and ‘a very great deal better’. Mean LCQ change varied (0.35 to 9.85), VAS scores ranged (−1.0mm to -58.0mm). Mean values and responder groups achieving MID for LCQ and VAS across GROC responses are reported. <bold>Conclusions:</bold> Guideline-based treatments improved cough PROs in only half the patients with CC. The magnitude of effect was highly variable across GROC items but higher than MID thresholds were observed for ‘moderately better’ or greater. <fig><object-id>erj;64/suppl_68/PA330/F1</object-id><object-id>F1</object-id><object-id>F1</object-id><graphic></graphic></fig>

University of Manchester (GB), University of Aveiro (PT), McMaster University (CA)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.