Abstract
Background Cough severity represents an important subjective endpoint in assessing the effectiveness of therapies for patients with chronic cough. Although cough-specific quality of life questionnaires exist, a widely available cough severity instrument with established measurement properties remains unavailable.
Aims To identify and summarise the results of studies reporting on the experience of patients with chronic cough and, in the process, develop a conceptual framework to inform development of a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) addressing cough severity.
Results We identified 61 eligible studies reporting on patient experience with chronic cough. Studies provided 82 potential items, of which 43 proved unique and relevant to cough severity. The urge-to-cough sensation and the cough symptom itself represented broad domains of cough severity. Two subdomains under urge-to-cough included frequency (1 item) and intensity (1 item). Five subdomains under cough symptoms included control (2 items), frequency (6 items), bout duration (1 item), intensity (8 items), and associated features/sequelae (24 items).
Conclusions Our systematic survey and conceptual framework identified items and domains of cough severity in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. The results support item generation and content validity for a PROM assessing cough severity.
Abstract
The urge-to-cough (frequency and intensity) and the cough symptom (control, frequency, bout duration, intensity and sequelae) represent domains to assess cough severity in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough https://bit.ly/3feqBXZ
Footnotes
Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.
Author contributions: E. Kum, G.H. Guyatt, T. Devji, Y. Wang, P.M. O'Byrne, and I. Satia conceived the study. E. Kum, G.H. Guyatt, and I. Satia comprised the steering group. E. Kum and R. Couban developed the search strategy. E. Kum, L. Bakaa, L. Lan, E. Liu, A. Mastrolonardo, and R. Couban searched and extracted the data. E. Kum performed the analysis. E. Kum, G.H. Guyatt, and I. Satia interpreted the data. E. Kum drafted the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
This article has supplementary material available from err.ersjournals.com
Conflict of interest: E. Kum has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: G.H. Guyatt has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: T. Devji has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Y. Wang has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: L. Bakaa has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: L. Lan has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: E. Liu has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: A. Mastrolonardo has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: R. Couban has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: P.M. O'Byrne reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Medimmune, personal fees from GSK and Chiesi, and grants from Novartis, outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: I. Satia reports personal fees from Educational Talks for GPs, GSK and AstraZeneca, grants from ERS Respire 3 Marie Curie Fellowship and E. J. Moran Campbell Early Career Award, and grants and personal fees from Merck Canada, outside the submitted work.
Support statement: E. Kum is supported by a CGS-M Scholarship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I. Satia is supported by an E. J. Moran Campbell Early Career Award from the Department of Medicine, McMaster University (Hamilton, ON, Canada).
- Received April 19, 2021.
- Accepted May 18, 2021.
- Copyright ©The authors 2021
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org