Károly Kulich

PURPOSE: To explore the published evidence on the link between treatment satisfaction and patients' compliance, adherence, and/or persistence. METHODS: Articles published from January 2005 to November 2010 assessing compliance, adherence, or persistence and treatment satisfaction were identified through literature searches in Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo. Abstracts were reviewed by two independent researchers who selected articles for inclusion. The main attributes of each study examining the link between satisfaction and adherence, compliance, or persistence were summarized. RESULTS: The database searches yielded 1278 references. Of the 281 abstracts that met the inclusion criteria, 20 articles were retained. In the articles, adherence and compliance were often used interchangeably and various methods were used to measure these concepts. All showed a positive association between treatment satisfaction and adherence, compliance, or persistence. Sixteen studies demonstrated a statistically significant link between satisfaction and compliance or persistence. Of these, ten demonstrated a significant link between satisfaction and compliance, two showed a significant link between satisfaction and persistence, and eight demonstrated a link between either a related aspect or a component of satisfaction (eg, treatment convenience) or adherence (eg, intention to persist). An equal number of studies aimed at explaining compliance or persistence according to treatment satisfaction (n = 8) and treatment satisfaction explained by compliance or persistence (n = 8). Four studies only reported correlation coefficients, with no hypothesis about the direction of the link. The methods used to evaluate the link were varied: two studies reported the link using descriptive statistics, such as percentages, and 18 used statistical tests, such as Spearman's correlation or logistic regressions. CONCLUSION: This review identified few studies that evaluate the statistical association between satisfaction and adherence, compliance, or persistence. The available data suggested that greater treatment satisfaction was associated with better compliance and improved persistence, and with lower regimen complexity or treatment burden.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between physical activity, disease severity, health status and prognosis in patients with COPD has not been systematically assessed. Our aim was to identify and summarise studies assessing associations between physical activity and its determinants and/or outcomes in patients with COPD and to develop a conceptual model for physical activity in COPD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Psychinfo) prior to November 2012. Teams of two reviewers independently selected articles, extracted data and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess quality of evidence. RESULTS: 86 studies were included: 59 were focused on determinants, 23 on outcomes and 4 on both. Hyperinflation, exercise capacity, dyspnoea, previous exacerbations, gas exchange, systemic inflammation, quality of life and self-efficacy were consistently related to physical activity, but often based on cross-sectional studies and low-quality evidence. Results from studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments were inconsistent and the quality of evidence was low to very low. As outcomes, COPD exacerbations and mortality were consistently associated with low levels of physical activity based on moderate quality evidence. Physical activity was associated with other outcomes such as dyspnoea, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity and FEV1 but based on cross-sectional studies and low to very low quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity level in COPD is consistently associated with mortality and exacerbations, but there is poor evidence about determinants of physical activity, including the impact of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of dyspepsia significantly disrupt patients' lives and reliable methods of assessing symptom status are important for patient management. The aim of the current study was to document the psychometric characteristics of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire (QOLRAD) in Afrikaans, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Spanish patients with dyspepsia. METHODS: 853 patients with symptoms of dyspepsia completed the GSRS, the QOLRAD, the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. RESULTS: The internal consistency reliability of the GSRS was 0.43-0.87 and of the QOLRAD 0.79-0.95. Test-retest reliability of the GSRS was 0.36-0.75 and of the QOLRAD 0.41-0.82. GSRS Abdominal pain domain correlated significantly with all QOLRAD domains in most language versions, and with SF-36 Bodily pain in all versions. QOLRAD domains correlated significantly with the majority of SF-36 domains in most versions. Both questionnaires were able to differentiate between patients whose health status differed according to symptom frequency and severity. CONCLUSION: The psychometric characteristics of the different language versions of the GSRS and QOLRAD were found to be good, with acceptable reliability and validity. The GSRS and QOLRAD were found to be useful for evaluating dyspeptic symptoms and their impact on patients' daily lives in multinational clinical trials.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) present with a variety of symptoms and pathological consequences. Although primarily viewed as a respiratory disease, COPD has both pulmonary and extrapulmonary effects, which have an impact on many aspects of physical, emotional, and mental well-being. Traditional assessment of COPD relies heavily on measuring lung function, specifically forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)). However, the evidence suggests that FEV(1) is a relatively poor correlate of symptoms such as breathlessness and the impact of COPD on daily life. Furthermore, many consequences of the disease, including anxiety and depression and the ability to perform daily activities, can only be described and reported reliably by the patient. Thus, in order to provide a comprehensive view of the effects of interventions in clinical trials, it is essential that spirometry is accompanied by assessments using patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We provide an overview of patient-reported outcome concepts in COPD, such as breathlessness, physical functioning, and health status, and evaluate the tools used for measuring these concepts. Particular attention is given to the newly developed instruments emerging in response to recent regulatory guidelines for the development and use of PROs in clinical trials. We conclude that although data from the development and validation of these new PRO instruments are emerging, to build the body of evidence that supports the use of a new instrument takes many years. Furthermore, new instruments do not necessarily have better discriminative or evaluative properties than older instruments. The development of new PRO tools, however, is crucial, not only to ensure that key COPD concepts are being reliably measured but also that the relevant treatment effects are being captured in clinical trials. In turn, this will help us to understand better the patient's experience of the disease.

We evaluated the effect of QVA149, a dual bronchodilator combining indacaterol and glycopyrronium, on direct patient-reported dyspnoea in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In this multicentre, blinded, double-dummy, three-period crossover study, 247 patients were randomised to once-daily QVA149 110/50 μg, placebo or tiotropium 18 μg. Superiority of QVA149 versus placebo (primary objective) and tiotropium (secondary objective) was assessed for improvement in dyspnoea via the self-administered computerised (SAC) version of the Baseline and Transition Dyspnoea Index after 6 weeks. Secondary end-points included lung function, rescue medication use and safety. After 6 weeks, the SAC Transition Dyspnoea Index total score was significantly higher with QVA149 versus placebo (least squares mean (LSM) treatment difference 1.37, p<0.001) and tiotropium (LSM treatment difference 0.49, p=0.021). QVA149 provided significant improvements in lung function, with higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0-4 h post-dose versus placebo and tiotropium at day 1 and week 6 (all p<0.001). Rescue medication use was significantly lower with QVA149 versus placebo (p<0.001) and tiotropium (p=0.002). All treatments were well tolerated. Once-daily QVA149 provided superior improvements in patient-reported dyspnoea and lung function versus placebo and tiotropium. These benefits were associated with improvements in other symptoms and reduced use of rescue medication.