Open Access

The psychometric properties of the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a literature review

  • Jeffrey J Swigris1Email author,
  • Dirk Esser2,
  • Craig S Conoscenti3 and
  • Kevin K Brown1
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201412:124

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0124-1

Received: 25 April 2014

Accepted: 5 August 2014

Published: 20 August 2014

Abstract

Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) is particularly important in patients with progressive and incurable diseases such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) has frequently been used to measure HRQL in patients with IPF, but it was developed for patients with obstructive lung diseases. The aim of this review was to examine published data on the psychometric performance of the SGRQ in patients with IPF. A comprehensive search was conducted to identify studies reporting data on the internal consistency, construct validity, test-retest reliability, and interpretability of the SGRQ in patients with IPF, published up to August 2013. In total, data from 30 papers were reviewed. Internal consistency was moderate for the SGRQ symptoms score and excellent for the SGRQ activity, impact and total scores. Validity of the SGRQ symptoms, activity, impact and total scores was supported by moderate to strong correlations with other patient-reported outcome measures and with a measure of exercise capacity. Most correlations were moderately strong between SGRQ activity or total scores and forced or static vital capacity, the most commonly used marker of IPF severity. There was evidence that changes in SGRQ domain and total scores could detect within-subject improvement in health status, and differentiate groups of patients whose health status had improved, declined or remained unchanged. Although the SGRQ was not developed specifically for use with patients with IPF, on balance, its psychometric properties are adequate and suggest that it may be a useful measure of HRQL in this patient population. However, several questions remain unaddressed, and further research is needed to confirm the SGRQ’s utility in IPF.

Keywords

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis Patient-reported outcomes PROs St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire SGRQ Health-related quality of life HRQL Psychometrics Validity Reliability

Introduction

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a specific form of fibrosing interstitial pneumonia characterized by progressive worsening of dyspnea and lung function [1]. In the United States, the annual incidence of IPF has been estimated as 6.8–8.8 cases per 100,000 using narrow case definitions (requiring a definite pattern of Usual Interstitial Pneumonia [UIP] on high-resolution computed tomography [HRCT]), and as 16.3–17.4 cases per 100,000 using broad case definitions (including patients with a possible UIP-pattern on HRCT) [2]. Although IPF has a poor prognosis, with a median survival time from diagnosis of 2 to 3 years, the clinical course of IPF varies considerably [1],[3]. Symptoms experienced by patients with IPF include non-productive cough, fatigue and chronic dyspnea, with the latter being the most prominent and disabling [4]. The morbidity associated with IPF has a broad and profound impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQL) [4],[5].

As IPF is a progressive disease with no cure, HRQL and other patient-centered outcomes are important endpoints to evaluate in research and clinical practice [6]. Although no disease-specific measure of HRQL has been established as suitable for longitudinal research in patients with IPF, several HRQL instruments (and others, including symptom and generic quality of life questionnaires) have been used [7],[8]. Which patient-centered instrument(s) (including HRQL questionnaires) to use in a particular study depends on a number of factors, including the design of the study, the intervention being assessed, the hypotheses being tested, and the characteristics of the comparator group (general population, patients with IPF of different severity, patients with another disease, etc.). In any situation, whether a generic HRQL instrument might perform as well or better than a disease-specific HRQL instrument is uncertain.

In this review, we focused on the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Although originally developed for use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma [8], it has frequently been used to evaluate HRQL in patients with IPF. The SGRQ is a 50-item questionnaire split into three domains: symptoms (assessing the frequency and severity of respiratory symptoms), activity (assessing the effects of breathlessness on mobility and physical activity), and impact (assessing the psychosocial impact of the disease) [9]. Scores are weighted such that every domain score and the total score range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a poorer HRQL.

The aim of this review was to assess the appropriateness of the SGRQ for measuring HRQL in patients with IPF by examining the evidence relating to the psychometric performance of the SGRQ in this population. A revised version of the SGRQ, the SGRQ-I, has been developed for use in patients with IPF [10]; however, studies assessing this tool are limited, and SGRQ-I data are not covered in this manuscript.

Methods

Search strategy and data extraction

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify articles that evaluated the psychometric properties of the SGRQ in patients with IPF. Following a PubMed search (see Additional file 1), articles were excluded if they were not published between 1 January 1991 (date of first publication of the SGRQ) and 31 August 2013, were not published in English, did not report data on the psychometric properties of the SGRQ in patients with IPF or duplicated clinical trial data reported in another article (Figure 1). Data extracted from the studies included study characteristics (country, duration, design, sample size), participant characteristics (age, gender, time since diagnosis, forced vital capacity [FVC]% predicted, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide [DLCO]% predicted) and results of the psychometric tests.
Figure 1

Selection of articles to be included in the review.

Articles were selected that assessed any of the following psychometric properties of the SGRQ: internal consistency, convergent validity, known groups validity, test-retest reliability (reproducibility), responsiveness, minimal important difference (MID), and floor and ceiling effects [11]. Internal consistency refers to the degree to which the individual items within an instrument correlate with each other (i.e., tap the same underlying construct). This is determined using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, with ≥0.70 considered to indicate acceptable internal consistency for a multi-dimensional instrument. Convergent validity describes the degree to which two measures, hypothesized to measure the same construct, correlate. Known groups validity refers to the extent to which scores on an instrument distinguish groups that differ on a key variable, usually clinical in nature. For the described validity measures, correlations were regarded as weak if ≤0.30, moderate if 0.30–0.60, and strong if >0.60 [12]. Test-retest reliability assesses the ability of an instrument to produce consistent scores over repeated measurements in patients who are clinically stable. Responsiveness assesses the ability of an instrument to detect change in individuals who are hypothesized to have changed on the underlying construct (HRQL) and who are known to have experienced change in clinical status. MID estimates identify the smallest difference in the score on an instrument that patients perceive as important. Floor and ceiling effects are limitations that occur when an individual scores at the extremes of an instrument; if a patient’s score is the lowest or highest possible value, the instrument is unable to detect a reduction or increase, respectively.

Results

A total of 30 papers were included in the review (Figure 1; Table 1).
Table 1

Studies included in this review

Study

Study type

Experimental treatment

Country

Sample size1

Disease duration (mo) mean (SD)

Baseline SGRQ score2

Baseline spirometric values2

All

IPF

FVC% predicted

DLCO% predicted

Antoniou et al., 2006 [13]

RCT

Interferon gamma b

Greece

50

50

T = 49.4 (24.3) C = 42.7 (16.8)

--

T = 71.8 (15.0) C = 70.7 (17.7)

--

Berry et al., 2012 [14]

Secondary validation study

n/a

US

405

239

--

--

66.0 (52–78)

--

Chang et al., 1999 [15]

Standalone validation study

n/a

US

50

33

--

Total = 38.9 [28.7–55.2] Symptoms domain = 50.5 [31.5–69.8], Activity domain = 54.4 [39.9–72.9], Impact domain = 28.4 [18.8–45.1]

65.0 (49.0–81.0)

49.0 (36.5–59.8)

du Bois et al., 2011 [16]

RCT

Interferon gamma b

Multi-national

822

822

--

Total = 41.8 (18)

72.5 (12.7)

47.4 (9.2)

Han et al., 2013 [17]

RCT

Sildenafil

US

119

119

20.4

--

56.9

26.0

Horton et al., 2012 [18]

RCT

Thalidomide

US

23

23

20.5 (3–59)

Total = 57.4 (18.8) Symptoms domain = 67.7 (19.7), Activity domain = 64.3 (22.7), Impact domain = 48.1 (20.7)

70.4 (13.7)

57.4 (14.4)

King, Jr. et al., 2008 [19]

RCT

Bosentan

Multi-national

158

158

T = 12.2 (12.2) C = 12.1 (12.0)

T-Total = 45.7 (18.1), C-Total = 45.2 (19)

T = 65.9 (10.5), C = 69.5 (12.6)

T = 42.3 (9.5), C = 41.4 (9.5)

King, Jr. et al., 2009 [20]

RCT

Interferon gamma b

Multi-national

826

826

T-Total = 41.6 (17.9), C-Total = 42.4 (18.2)

T = 72.2 (12.3), C = 73.1 (13.4)

T = 47.4 (9.2), C = 47.3 (9.3)

Lechtzin et al., 2013 [21]

RCT

Thalidomide

US

24

24

--

Total = 57.4 (18.8), Symptoms domain = 67.7 (19.7), Activity domain = 64.3 (22.7), Impact domain = 48.1 (20.7)

70.4 (13.7)

57.4 (14.4)

Mishra et al., 2011 [22]

Within-subject trial

Oral doxycycline

India

6

6

--

Total = 50.90 (8.38)

n/a

n/a

Naji et al., 2006 [23]

Within-subject trial

Pulmonary rehabilitation

Ireland

26

19

--

Total = 48 (27.6, 67.9)

66.7 (20.7)

42.5 (14)

Nishiyama et al., 2005 [24]

Standalone validation study

n/a

Japan

41

41

--

Total = 35.7 (20.6) [range 1.6–77.6], Symptoms domain = 40.1 (24.6) [range 4.4–85.6], Activity domain = 44.5 (26.7) [range 0–93.9], Impact domain = 28.9 (19.8) [range 0–77.0]

n/a

n/a

Nishiyama et al., 2008 [25]

RCT

Pulmonary rehabilitation

Japan

28

28

--

T-Total = 50.2 (16.3), T-Symptoms domain = 56.4 (22.3), T-Activity domain = 64.7 (17.1), T-Impact domain = 39.7 (17.6), C-Total = 37.8 (22.7), C-Symptoms domain = 38.0 (25.8), C-Activity domain = 50.4 (26.2), C-Impact domain = 29.9 (23.7)

T = 66.1 (13.2), C = 68.7 (19.5)

T = 59.4 (16.7), C = 48.6 (16.7)

Noth et al., 2012 [26]

RCT

Warfarin

US

145

145

T = 21.6, C = 25.2

T-Total = 46.2 (18.0), C-Total = 50.1 (17.2)

T = 58.9 (16.2), C = 58.7 (16.1)

T = 33.8 (12.4), C = 34.6 (13.4)

Patel et al., 2012 [27]

Standalone validation study

n/a

UK

173

49

48.0

--

82 (34–143)

--

Peng et al., 2008 [28]

Standalone validation study

n/a

China

68

68

14.0 (14.0)

Total = 54 (15), Symptoms domain = 65 (16), Activity domain = 56 (15), Impact domain = 49 (19)

66 (18)

54 (16)

Raghu et al., 2004 [29]

RCT

Interferon gamma b

Multi-national

330

330

--

--

T = 63.9 (10.7), C = 64.1 (11.3)

--

Raghu et al., 2008 [30]

RCT

Etanercept

Multi-national

88

88

T = 14.7 (19.8), C = 12.3 (13.6)

T-Total = 40.8 (18.1), C-Total = 42.9 (19.4)

T = 64.7 (14.1), C = 63.0 (12.7)

T = 36.3 (12.6), C = 36.9 (10.8)

Raghu et al., 2013 [31]

RCT

Ambrisentan

Multi-national

492

492

T = 13.2, C = 10.8

T-Total = 44.5 (21.6), C-Total = 40.5 (21.1)

T = 68.7 (13.1), C = 69.9 (13.8)

T = 42.0 (13.8), C = 45.6 (13.3)

Rammaert et al., 2009 [32]

Within-subject trial

Pulmonary rehabilitation

France

13

13

--

--

67 (14)

32 (13)

Richeldi et al., 2011 [33]

RCT

Nintedanib (BIBF 1120)

Multi-national

428

428

T, 50 mg qd = 16.8 (15.6), T, 50 mg bid = 13.2 (14.4), T, 100 mg bid = 14.4 (14.4), T, 150 mg bid = 12 (14.4), C = 16.8 (18)

T, 50 mg qd-Total = 43.7 (17.5), T, 50 mg bid-Total = 42.5 (17.0), T, 100 mg bid-Total = 43.7 (16.6), T, 150 mg bid-Total = 40.1 (18.3), C-Total = 41.2 (17.9)

T, 50 mg qd = 80.4 (17.8), T, 50 mg bid = 79.8 (15.8), T, 100 mg bid = 85.5 (19.2), T, 150 mg bid = 79.1 (18.5), C = 81.7 (17.6)

Swigris et al., 2010 [34]

Secondary validation study

Bosentan

Multi-national

158

158

--

Total = 44.8 (19.5), Symptoms domain = 50.1 (21.9), Activity domain = 60.6 (22.8), Impact domain = 33.7 (20.6)

67.0 (12.8)

40.98 (10.1)

Swigris et al., 2012 [35]

Secondary validation study

Sildenafil

US

180

180

24.0

Activity domain = 69.6 (17.6)

56.8 (14.2)

26.3 (6.1)

Tzanakis et al., 2005 [36]

Standalone validation study

n/a

Greece

25

25

31.2

Total = 37.7 (18.9), Symptoms domain = 55.9 (25.3), Activity domain = 36.2 (21.4), Impact domain = 29.6 (21)

68.8 (16)

--

Tzouvelekis et al., 2013 [37]

Within-subject trial

Adipose-derived stromal cells

Greece

14

14

--

--

--

--

Verma et al., 2011 [38]

Standalone validation study

n/a

Canada

137

137

Total = 63.4 (3.7–96.3), Symptoms domain = 59.8 (0–97.2), Activity domain = 81.6 (6.0–99.5), Impact domain = 54.1 (0–96.4)

61.7 (19.8)

49.5 (17.9)

Yorke et al., 20103[10]

Secondary validation study

Bosentan

Multi-national

158

158

--

--

61.0 (12.2)

--

Yorke et al., 2011 [39]

Standalone validation study

n/a

Multi-national

101

67

--

Total = 53 (24), Symptoms domain = 61 (23), Activity domain = 65 (30), Impact domain = 41 (24)

77 (19.5)

51.6 (21)

Zimmermann et al., 2007 [40]

Standalone validation study

n/a

Brazil

22

22

--

Total = 48.4 (17.9), Symptoms domain = 46.4 (20.3), Activity domain = 62.4 (19), Impact domain = 43.6 (20.9)

70.4 (19.4)

41.5 (16.2)

Zisman et al., 2010 [41]

RCT

Sildenafil

US

180

180

T = 24.4, C = 22.4

T-Total = 54.55 (16.46), C-Total = 51.72 (15.86)

T = 54.9 (14.00), C = 58.7 (14.12)

--

1Sample size reported represents the population in which efficacy was assessed. RCT = randomized controlled trial; T = treatment group; C = comparator group; qd = once daily; bid = twice daily. 2Mean (SD) or median [interquartile range] are reported based on availability. 3Data reported refer to the original version of the SGRQ, not the SGRQ-I.

Internal consistency

Data from a clinical trial of bosentan have been used to determine the internal consistency of the SGRQ in patients with IPF. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.66 for the symptoms score and ≥0.84 for each of the SGRQ activity, impact and total scores [10],[34].

Convergent validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by extracting cross-sectional and longitudinal correlations between SGRQ scores and other patient-reported outcome measures (Table 2), an assessment of exercise capacity (Table 3), pulmonary function tests (PFTs) or partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Table 4), and assessments of fibrotic abnormalities on HRCT (Table 5).
Table 2

Correlation coefficients between SGRQ scores and other patient-reported assessments of health status

 

Measure

Scale

Correlation with SGRQ symptoms domain score

Correlation with SGRQ activity domain score

Correlation with SGRQ impact domain score

Correlation with SGRQ total score

Cross-sectional studies

Chang et al., 1999 [15]

Borg Dyspnea Index

    

0.56

Lechtzin et al., 2013 [21]

CQLQ

Total

0.72*

0.72

0.81

0.79

Physical complaints

0.50*

0.72

0.71

0.77

Psychological issues

0.29

0.40

0.62

0.54*

Functional ability

0.53*

0.54*

0.66

0.66

Emotional well-being

0.19

0.42

0.57

0.50*

Extreme physical complaints

0.38

0.34

0.63

0.54*

Personal safety fears

0.05

0.23

0.45*

0.34

Nishiyama et al., 2005 [24]

BDI

 

−0.55

−0.77§

−0.53

−0.69§

Patel et al., 2012 [27]

K-BILD

Total

−0.67

−0.79

−0.87

−0.89

Psychological

−0.60

−0.67

−0.80

−0.79

Breathlessness

−0.59

−0.84

−0.80

−0.86

Chest

−0.65

−0.64

−0.79

−0.78

Peng et al., 2008 [28]

Dyspnea score

 

NS

0.58§

0.30

0.38

Swigris et al., 2012 [35]

UCSD-SOBQ

  

0.80§

  

Yorke et al., 20101[10]

BDI

 

−0.39§

−0.72§

−0.61§

−0.68§

SF-36 PCS

 

−0.52§

−0.74§

−0.63§

−0.71§

Borg Dyspnea Index

 

0.35§

0.45§

0.40§

0.45§

Yorke et al., 2011 [39]

D-12

 

0.57

0.78

0.75

0.79

Zimmermann et al., 2007 [40]

BDI

 

−0.62*

−0.75*

−0.63*

−0.72*

Longitudinal studies

Nishiyama et al., 2008 [25]

Δ BDI

    

−0.29

Peng et al., 2008 [28]

Δ Dyspnea score

 

NS

0.59

0.56

0.45

BDI = Baseline Dyspnea Index; CQLQ = Cough Quality of Life Questionnaire; D-12 = Dyspnea-12; K-BILD = King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire; SF-36 PCS = SF-36 Physical Component Summary; UCSD-SOBQ = University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire; Δ = change.

*p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001; §p < 0.0001; NS = non-significant. 1Data reported refer to the original version of the SGRQ, not the SGRQ-I.

Table 3

Correlation coefficients between SGRQ scores and the 6MWD as a measure of exercise capacity

 

Measure

Correlation with SGRQ symptoms domain score

Correlation with SGRQ activity domain score

Correlation with SGRQ impact domain score

Correlation with SGRQ total score

Cross-sectional studies

Chang et al., 1999 [15]

6MWD

   

−0.66

du Bois et al., 2011 [16]

6MWD

   

−0.26

Peng et al., 2008 [28]

6MWD

−0.32

−0.43

−0.41

−0.45

Yorke et al., 20101[10]

6MWD

−0.14

−0.32§

−0.24

−0.28

Yorke et al., 2011 [39]

6MWD

−0.32

−0.54

−0.47

 

Zimmermann et al., 2007 [40]

6MWD

−0.41

−0.72*

−0.63*

−0.72*

Longitudinal studies

du Bois et al., 2011 [16]

Δ 6MWD

   

−0.231

Nishiyama et al., 2008 [25]

Δ 6MWD

   

−0.43*

Peng et al., 2008 [28]

Δ 6MWD

NS

−0.43

−0.46

−0.41

6MWD = Distance covered in 6-minute walk test; Δ = change.

*p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001; §p < 0.0001; NS = non-significant. 1Data reported refer to the original version of the SGRQ, not the SGRQ-I.

Table 4

Correlation coefficients between SGRQ scores, pulmonary function tests and arterial blood gas analysis

 

Lung function measure

Correlation with SGRQ symptoms domain score

Correlation with SGRQ activity domain score

Correlation with SGRQ impact domain score

Correlation with SGRQ total score

Chang et al., 1999 [15]

DLCO% predicted

   

−0.55

FEV1% predicted

   

−0.46

FVC% predicted

   

−0.45

TLC% predicted

   

−0.36

Nishiyama et al., 2005 [24]

PaO2

−0.21

−0.48

−0.29

−0.37*

SpO2

−0.38*

−0.48

−0.22

−0.37*

TLC

−0.48

−0.38*

−0.21

−0.36*

TLCO

−0.32*

−0.45

−0.27

−0.39*

VC

−0.35*

−0.36*

−0.15

−0.30

Peng et al., 2008 [28]

DLCO% predicted

−0.46§

−0.46§

−0.34

−0.44

FEV1% predicted

NS

−0.53§

−0.34

−0.42§

PaO2

NS

−0.54

NS

−0.32

TLC% predicted

−0.50§

−0.61§

−0.52§

−0.62§

VC% predicted

NS

−0.59§

−0.35

−0.47§

Tzanakis et al., 2005 [36]

FEV1% predicted

   

−0.50

PaO2 (at rest)

   

−0.51

PaO2 (at exertion)

   

−0.60

TLC% predicted

   

−0.55

Yorke et al., 20101[10]

FVC% predicted

−0.27

−0.31§

−0.30§

−0.34§

TLCO% predicted

−0.23

−0.34§

−0.38§

−0.38§

Yorke et al., 2011 [39]

DLCO%

−0.16

−0.37

−0.28*

 

FVC%

−0.13

−0.16

−0.24*

 

Zimmermann et al., 2007 [40]

DLCO% predicted

−0.41

−0.32

−0.39

−0.47*

FEV1% predicted

−0.08

−0.57*

−0.52*

−0.57*

TLC% predicted

−0.37

−0.65*

−0.58*

−0.66*

VC% predicted

−0.14

−0.54*

−0.61*

−0.56*

DLCO = diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide; FEV1 = forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FVC = forced vital capacity; PaO2 = partial pressure of oxygen dissolved in arterial blood; TLC = total lung capacity, TLCO = transfer factor of the lung for carbon monoxide; VC = vital capacity.

*p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001; §p < 0.0001; NS = non-significant. 1Data reported refer to the original version of the SGRQ, not the SGRQ-I.

Table 5

Correlation coefficients between SGRQ scores and extent of fibrosis on HRCT

Study

HRCT measure

Correlation with SGRQ symptoms domain score

Correlation with SGRQ activity domain score

Correlation with SGRQ impact domain score

Correlation with SGRQ total score

Peng et al., 2008 [28]

CT-alv

0.41

NS

0.34*

0.39

CT-fib

NS

0.37*

NS

NS

CT-tot

0.36*

0.39

0.35*

0.42

CT-alv = ground glass opacity; CT-fib = interstitial opacity; CT-tot = total.

*p < 0.01; p < 0.001; NS = non-significant.

Patient-reported outcome measures

In nine studies, investigators provided information on the correlation between SGRQ scores and other patient-reported outcome measures (BDI [Baseline Dyspnea Index], D-12 [Dyspnea-12], K-BILD [King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire], UCSD-SOBQ [University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire], CQLQ [Cough Quality of Life Questionnaire], a single-item dyspnea assessment, SF-36 Physical Component Summary score [SF-36 PCS] and the Borg Dyspnea Index) (Table 2). Moderate to strong correlations were observed between the SGRQ total score and the total scores on these instruments (Table 2). In general, moderate to strong correlations were observed between SGRQ domain scores and the total scores on these instruments. Likewise, moderate to strong correlations were observed between SGRQ domain or total scores and the total, physical complaints, extreme physical complaints, and functional ability sub-scale scores of the CQLQ (r = 0.34 to 0.81) [21], the total and sub-scale scores of the K-BILD (r = -0.59 to -0.89) [27], the SF-36 PCS, a composite score measuring overall physical health (r = -0.52 to -0.74) [10] and the Borg Dyspnea index (r = 0.35 to 0.56) [10],[15]. For most measures and their sub-scales, correlations were weakest with the SGRQ symptoms score (when compared with other SGRQ domains or the total score).

In two studies, investigators evaluated correlations between SGRQ change scores and change scores from other patient-reported outcome measures (Table 2). In one study, correlations were moderately strong between change scores for the SGRQ activity, impact and total scores and change scores from the single-item dyspnea assessment (r = 0.59, 0.56 and 0.45, respectively) [28]. In the other study, investigators found that the correlation between the BDI change score and SGRQ total change score was -0.29 and not significant [25]. However, the BDI was designed to measure dyspnea severity at a single point in time and not to measure change in dyspnea severity [42].

Measures of exercise capacity

Correlation coefficients between SGRQ scores and a measure of exercise capacity are presented in Table 3. Distance covered during the 6-minute walk test (6MWD) is frequently used as a measure of exercise capacity in patients with IPF, and change in 6MWD has been shown to be a predictor of mortality in these patients [16]. In five cross-sectional studies in patients with IPF, investigators examined the relationship between the SGRQ total score and 6MWD. The strength of these correlations was moderate to strong in three (-0.45 to -0.72) [15],[28],[40] and weak in two (-0.26 and -0.28) [10],[16] studies. In four cross-sectional studies, investigators examined the relationship between the SGRQ domain scores and the 6MWD [10],[28],[39],[40]; the strength of these correlations was moderate to strong for the activity score in all four studies (r = -0.32 to -0.72), moderate to strong for the impact score (r = -0.41 to -0.63) and moderate for the symptoms score (r = -0.32 to -0.41) in three studies. In three studies, investigators examined the relationship between change scores for the SGRQ total and change in 6MWD;[16],[25],[28]correlation coefficients ranged from -0.23 to -0.43.

Pulmonary function tests and arterial blood gas analysis

Table 4 presents correlations between SGRQ scores and either PFTs or arterial blood gas analysis in patients with IPF. All correlations between the SGRQ total score and these variables were moderate to strong (r = -0.30 to -0.66, and p < 0.05 for all but one). There were moderate to strong correlations between the SGRQ activity score and the majority of pertinent PFT results (e.g., FVC or DLCO) or arterial blood gas analysis in all studies, while correlations between the SGRQ symptoms or impact domain scores and these variables were generally weak to moderate. Results for FVC, the lung function parameter regarded as the most statistically useful physiological indicator of IPF severity, and the one most frequently used as a primary endpoint in contemporary clinical trials, were weakly to moderately correlated with SGRQ total and domain scores (r = -0.34 to -0.45 for the SGRQ total and -0.13 to -0.31 for the SGRQ domains).

HRCT

In one study of patients with IPF, investigators assessed correlations between SGRQ scores and the extent of fibrotic abnormalities on HRCT (degree of ground-glass opacity [CT-alv], interstitial opacity [CT-fib], and both [total score]) (Table 5). Correlations were moderately strong between the SGRQ symptoms, impact and total scores and CT-alv or total scores (r = 0.34 to 0.42) and moderately strong between the SGRQ activity score and both the CT-fib and total scores (r = 0.37 to 0.39) [28].

Known groups validity

Although there are no well-established categories of disease severity in IPF, it may be hypothesized that patients receiving supplemental oxygen represent patients with more severe disease. In two studies, investigators found that SGRQ total scores were worse in patients using supplemental oxygen versus those not using supplemental oxygen [15],[38]. In one study by Chang and colleagues, the magnitude of difference between patients using versus not using oxygen was 4.7 (p < 0.05) [15].

Test-retest reliability (reproducibility)

No studies were found that reported data on the test-retest reliability of the SGRQ in patients with stable IPF.

Minimal important difference

A triangulation approach has been used to determine an MID estimate for SGRQ scores in patients with IPF [34]. Using both distribution- and anchor-based approaches (using FVC, DLCO and the TDI as anchors), the MID for the SGRQ symptoms, activity, impact and total scores was 8, 5, 7 and 7 respectively.

Responsiveness

The responsiveness of the SGRQ domain and total scores has been assessed in one study [34]. Using data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of bosentan, investigators assessed the ability of the SGRQ to discriminate among IPF patients who had experienced an improvement, decline, or no change in disease status over 6 months, as defined by three clinical anchors (change in FVC, DLCO, transition dyspnea index [TDI]). With the exception of the SGRQ symptoms score when DLCO was the anchor, changes in SGRQ domain and total scores differed significantly between patients who had declined, remained stable, or improved. [34]. Change scores from the SGRQ total and its domains were reported for the DLCO and TDI response categories and ranged from +3 to +13, +1 to -5, and 0 to -12 for patients that declined, remained stable, or improved, respectively. The impact domain discriminated best between all categories of change for all three anchors [34].

SGRQ as an endpoint

In sixteen trials, investigators used the SGRQ domain and/or total scores as outcome variables. In four trials, investigators evaluated the within-subject change in SGRQ total score from baseline to end of treatment [22],[23],[32],[37] (Table 6). In all four, improvements were observed in exercise endurance or FVC; among these, in three there was a significant decrease in SGRQ total score from baseline to end of treatment (8–24 weeks).
Table 6

Changes in SGRQ scores in within-subject clinical trials

Study

Treatment under investigation

Treatment duration

Sample size

SGRQ total score1

Effect size

p-value2

Total

IPF

Baseline

Post-treatment

Mishra et al., 2011 [22]

Oral doxycycline

24 weeks

6

6

50.90 (8.38)

18.40 (6.39)

3.88

<0.001

Naji et al., 2006 [23]

Pulmonary rehabilitation

8 weeks

26

19

48.3 [21.5, 82]

39.5 [17.4, 69.4]

0.41

<0.10

Rammaert et al., 2009 [32]

Pulmonary rehabilitation

8 weeks

13

13

NS

Tzouvelekis et al., 2013 [37]

Endobronchial infusion of adipose-derived stromal cells

6 months

14

14

35.1 (6.8)

27.8 (5.6)

1.07

<0.05

1Mean (SD) or median [range] are reported based on availability.

2p-value for test of statistical significance between SGRQ score at baseline and post-treatment.

In the remaining 12 trials, investigators assessed whether the SGRQ domain and/or total scores differed between active and placebo groups (Table 7). In four of these [13],[17],[18],[25], statistically significant between-group differences for the primary endpoint coincided with statistically significant between-group differences in at least one SGRQ total or domain score (range of between-groups difference in SGRQ total score: -6.1 to -13.4). Six studies [17],[20],[26],[29]-[31] reported a lack of statistically significant treatment effect in the primary endpoint or SGRQ scores (range of between-groups difference in SGRQ total score reported in three studies: -0.5 to -3.0; scores were not reported in three studies). In three studies [19],[33],[41], the primary endpoint was not met, but the SGRQ total or domain scores were significantly different between treatment groups (range of between-groups difference in SGRQ total score: -3.3 to -6.1).
Table 7

Changes in SGRQ scores in randomized controlled trials

Study

Treatment duration

Sample size, IPF

Randomized groups

Change from baseline in SGRQ symptoms domain score

Change from baseline in SGRQ activity domain score

Change from baseline in SGRQ impact domain score

Change from baseline in SGRQ total score

Antoniou et al., 2006 [13]

12 months

50

Interferon gamma b

−13.2 [21.4,5.0]

−4.8 [-12.7, 3.0]

−1.9 [-9.2, 5.4]

−4.7 [-11.4, 2.0]

Colchicine

7.5 [-4.5, 19.5]

4.7 [-12.1, 22.0]

4.1 [-6.4, 14.6]

4.8 [-5.9, 15.5]

p-value2

0.01

NS

NS

NS

Han et al., 2013 [17]

12 weeks

22

Sildenafil (with RVSD)

Placebo (with RVSD)

Difference1

−28.0 [-41.7, -14.4]

−5.6 [-16.1, 5.0]

−14.0 [-25.6, -2.4]

−13.4 [-22.7, -4.2]

p-value2

<0.0001

NS

0.02

0.005

97

Sildenafil (without RVSD)

Placebo, (without RVSD)

Difference1

−3.8 [-10.7, 3.0]

−4.1 [-9.2, 1.1]

−1.8 [-7.5, 3.9]

−3.0 [-7.6, 1.7]

p-value2

NS

NS

NS

NS

Horton et al., 2012 [18]

12 weeks

23

Thalidomide

Placebo

Difference1

−12.1 [22.2,2.0]

−3.3 [-9.8, 3.2]

−13.1 [-19.7, -6.6]

−11.7 [-18.6, -4.8]

p-value2

0.018

NS

<0.001

0.001

King, Jr. et al., 2008 [19]

6 months4

158

Bosentan

Placebo

Difference1

−3.3 (2.6)

p-value2

0.034

King, Jr. et al., 2009 [20]

77 weeks

826

Interferon gamma b

--

--

--

5.7 (13.5)

Placebo

6.2 (14.3)

p-value2

NS

Nishiyama et al., 2008 [25]

10 weeks

28

Pulmonary rehabilitation

No pulmonary rehabilitation

Difference1

−5.7 [-18.7, 7.2]

−5.8 [-14.7, 3.1]

−6.2 [-12.8, 0.3]

−6.1 [-11.7, 0.5]

p-value2

NS

NS

NS

<.05

Noth et al., 2012 [26]

28 weeks

145

Warfarin

Placebo

p-value2

NS

Raghu et al., 2004 [29]

48 weeks

330

Interferon gamma 1b

Placebo

p-value2

NS

Raghu et al., 2008 [30]

48 weeks

88

Etanercept

--

Placebo

--

Difference1

--

p-value2

NS

NS

NS

NS

Raghu et al., 2013 [31]

48 weeks

492

Ambrisentan

4.7

Placebo

3.0

p-value2

NS

Richeldi et al., 2011 [33]

12 months

431

Nintedanib 50 mg qd

3.39 (2.51)

7.39 (1.96)

3.71 (2.04)

4.67 (1.78)

Nintedanib 50 mg bid

2.11 (2.34)

3.54 (1.82)

1.73 (1.90)

2.18 (1.65)

Nintedanib 100 mg bid

2.33 (2.35)

3.00 (1.83)

0.79 (1.91)

1.48 (1.66)

Nintedanib 150 mg bid

−3.14 (2.40)

0.32 (1.89)

−0.14 (1.97)

−0.66 (1.71)

Placebo

6.45 (2.45)

7.48 (1.91)

4.21 (1.99)

5.46 (1.73)

p-value3

<0.005

<0.005

<0.01

Zisman et al., 2010 [41]

12 weeks

180

Sildenafil

−3.58 [-7.02, -0.13]

−1.15 [-3.68, 1.38]

−0.88 [-3.78, 2.02]

−1.64 [-3.91, 0.64]

Placebo

2.15 [-1.30, 5.61]

2.49 [0.00, 4.99]

2.82 [-0.03, 5.67]

2.45 [0.17, 4.72]

Difference1

−5.73 [-10.61, -0.85]

−3.64 [-7.20, -0.09]

−3.70 [-7.76, 0.37]

−4.08 [-7.30, -0.86]

p-value2

0.02

.04

NS

.01

RVSD = right ventricular systolic dysfunction.

1Difference in change from baseline between treatment groups, mean [95% CI].

2Test of statistical significance for the difference in mean change from baseline between groups.

3Test of statistical significance for the difference in mean change from baseline between the nintedanib 150 mg bid and placebo groups.

4Treatment continued for ≥12 months (data not available).

Four studies [20],[31],[33],[41] reported changes from baseline in SGRQ total score in the placebo group. Adjusting for different trial durations, the SGRQ total score in the placebo arms of these trials deteriorated (increased) by a median of +4.9 (range: 3.2 to 10.6) per 52 weeks.

Floor and ceiling effects

No studies were found in which investigators reported data on floor and ceiling effects for the SGRQ in patients with IPF. However, in most studies, the minimum and maximum achievable SGRQ total scores (0 and 100, respectively) were outside an interval spanning twice the standard deviation around the reported means (Table 1). For the two studies in which investigators reported ranges for baseline SGRQ total scores, ranges did not include minimum or maximum possible values [24],[38], thus confirming the absence of floor or ceiling effects in these studies.

Conclusions

Measurement standards and psychometric criteria have been proposed to assist with choosing an appropriate instrument to evaluate HRQL in patients with IPF [6],[43]. As with any patient-reported outcome measure used in the study of any condition, an instrument must have face validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, longitudinal validity, and minimal floor and ceiling effects in the target patient population.

The constellation of findings from studies identified in our search revealed that in patients with IPF, the internal consistency of the SGRQ activity and impact domains and the SGRQ total score was excellent, and the internal consistency of the symptoms domain was moderate, and in most studies, fell below the acceptable threshold of 0.7. The lower internal consistency of the symptoms domain is likely because it asks about a range of respiratory symptoms (cough, sputum, shortness of breath, wheezing and attacks of chest trouble), the majority of which apply to few patients with IPF whose major symptoms are shortness of breath and cough. In response data, off-target items create a weaker level of inter-relatedness among items in this domain, and thus lower internal consistency. This also contributes to the lower convergent validity of this domain, as the off-target items weaken the associations between its scores and clinical measures of IPF severity (e.g., patients may endorse wheezing or attacks of chest trouble, but these symptoms are unlikely related to a person’s FVC). These off-target (for IPF) items in the symptoms domain detract from the SGRQ’s face validity and would likely have been removed or modified in a tool specifically designed for use with patients with IPF. Overall, the symptoms domain may be well-suited for patients with COPD, but is not tailored to precisely assess symptoms in patients with IPF. The non-informative noise in the symptoms domain might also contribute to a less than optimal performance of the SGRQ total score. Overall, however, despite its weak face validity in IPF, the symptoms domain performs reasonably well in this population, and its potential to detract from the performance of the SGRQ total score is tempered because it contributes least to the SGRQ total score.

Convergent validity analyses seek to determine whether two measures, hypothesized to measure the same construct, do in fact correlate, and moderate, statistically significant correlations in the expected direction support convergent validity. Very strong or ‘perfect’ correlations, suggest redundancy in measurement, so moderate correlations between a patient-reported outcome measure and another clinical variable support convergent validity of the patient-reported outcome measure while confirming that it contributes unique information not captured by the other clinical variable [5]. The SGRQ has been used as a secondary endpoint in several clinical trials conducted in patients with IPF. Among the select few in which the intervention outperformed placebo, SGRQ results were as one would anticipate, i.e., SGRQ scores improved in the group that benefited from the intervention. Although not a formal assessment of responsiveness, consistency between the changes in SGRQ scores and the changes in other endpoints supports responsiveness.

In sum, the limitations of the SGRQ in IPF should be noted, as it was not originally developed for use in patients with IPF. In particular, this applies to possible over-interpretation of results of individual domains. However, the cross-sectional correlations between SGRQ domain and total scores and other measures of patient-reported health status, exercise capacity or lung function, along with the ability of the SGRQ to distinguish patients who experience a change in clinical status or remain stable over time, support the SGRQ as a useful patient-reported outcome measure in IPF.

Limitations to our research include the following: we could only identify one study in which MID estimates for the SGRQ scores in IPF were determined [44]. This study used a triangulation approach and concluded an MID that was higher than that reported for COPD [45], but more research with additional datasets is needed to evaluate these estimates. In the meantime, the use of responder rates of patients experiencing a minimum change from baseline in SGRQ scores – or perhaps more informative, cumulative distribution plots – may be a useful assessment, as research suggests that it may be less dependent on the exact cutoff, i.e. the precise value of the MID [46].

No articles were identified that evaluated the test-retest reliability of the SGRQ in patients with stable IPF. Likewise, we could not locate a study in which floor and ceiling effects of SGRQ scores were reported, although an analysis of the reported baseline mean SGRQ total scores and their standard deviations suggested that there was no evidence for either. Furthermore, we did not assess the content validity of the SGRQ in patients with IPF, nor did we include analyses of articles published in languages other than English. Content validity and cultural adaption are important factors to consider for any patient-reported outcome measure, but these topics were beyond the scope of this evaluation of the SGRQ’s psychometric properties. Therefore, it is evident that more research on the SGRQ is needed in this patient population.

The utility of a patient-reported outcome measure may be assessed only after a wealth of data becomes available. The assessment involves examining how the measure performs in the target population under several circumstances. The cache of available data has greatly advanced our understanding of HRQL in general, and the performance of the SGRQ in patients with IPF. For example, whilst the mean baseline SGRQ total score reported in IPF (around 45; interquartile range: 42–50) is similar to that reported in COPD trials [47],[48], an analysis of the reported changes from baseline in the SGRQ total score in the placebo arms suggests that untreated patients with IPF deteriorate by +4.9 points over a period of 52 weeks. This contrasts with the experience in COPD, where patients on placebo show an improvement of 2–3 points per year [46], and reflects the progressive decline in health status seen in patients with IPF.

Finally, a major factor in this assessment revolves around how confidently response data from the measure can be used to make inferences about patients in the target population. For example, what can be said about a patient with IPF whose SGRQ score is 50? How does day-to-day functioning, or how a patient feels, change for an IPF patient whose SGRQ score increases by 10 over 6 months? Being able to answer these, and similar, questions confidently and accurately will further and more strongly support the validity of the SGRQ as an instrument capable of assessing domains of HRQL in this population. Until then, the balance of the data suggests that the SGRQ may be a suitable secondary endpoint for measuring HRQL in therapeutic trials of IPF.

Additional file

Abbreviations

6MWD: 

Distance covered in 6-minute walk test

BDI: 

Baseline Dyspnea Index

Bid: 

Twice daily

C: 

Comparator group

COPD: 

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CQLQ: 

Cough Quality of Life Questionnaire

CT-alv: 

Degree of ground-glass opacity

CT-fib: 

Interstitial opacity

CT-tot: 

Total

D-12: 

Dyspnea-12

DLCO

Diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide

FEV1

Forced expiratory volume in 1 second

FVC: 

Forced vital capacity

HRCT: 

High-resolution computed tomography

HRQL: 

Health-related quality of life

IPF: 

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

K-BILD: 

King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire

MID: 

Minimal important difference

PaO2

Partial pressure of oxygen dissolved in arterial blood

PFT: 

Pulmonary function tests

Qd: 

Once daily

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trial

RVSD: 

Right ventricular systolic dysfunction

SF-36 PCS: 

Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary score

SGRQ: 

St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire

T: 

Treatment group

TDI: 

Transition dyspnea index

TLC: 

Total lung capacity

TLCO

Transfer factor of the lung for carbon monoxide

UCSD-SOBQ: 

University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire

VC: 

Vital capacity

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Nancy Kline Leidy and Hilary Wilson of Evidera for their expert advice. Editorial assistance, supported financially by Boehringer Ingelheim, was provided by Wendy Morris and Julie Fleming of Fleishman-Hillard Group, Ltd, London, UK, during the preparation of this article. The authors were fully responsible for all content and editorial decisions, were involved at all stages of manuscript development and have approved the final version.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
National Jewish Health
(2)
Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein
(3)
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc

References

  1. Raghu G, Collard HR, Egan JJ, Martinez FJ, Behr J, Brown KK, Colby TV, Cordier JF, Flaherty KR, Lasky JA, Lynch DA, Ryu JH, Swigris JJ, Wells AU, Ancochea J, Bouros D, Carvalho C, Costabel U, Ebina M, Hansell DM, Johkoh T, Kim DS, King TE Jr, Kondoh Y, Myers J, Müller NL, Nicholson AG, Richeldi L, Selman M, Dudden RF, et al.: An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011, 183: 788–824. 10.1164/rccm.2009-040GLView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Nalysnyk L, Cid-Ruzafa J, Rotella P, Esser D: Incidence and prevalence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: review of the literature. Eur Respir Rev 2012, 21: 355–361. 10.1183/09059180.00002512View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ley B, Collard HR, King TE Jr: Clinical course and prediction of survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011, 183: 431–440. 10.1164/rccm.201006-0894CIView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Swigris JJ, Stewart AL, Gould MK, Wilson SR: Patients’ perspectives on how idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis affects the quality of their lives. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005, 3: 61. 10.1186/1477-7525-3-61PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Swigris JJ, Kuschner WG, Jacobs SS, Wilson SR, Gould MK: Health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review. Thorax 2005, 60: 588–594. 10.1136/thx.2004.035220PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Belkin A, Swigris JJ: Health-related quality of life in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: where are we now? Curr Opin Pulm Med 2013, 19: 474–479. 10.1097/MCP.0b013e328363f479View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Swigris JJ, Gould MK, Wilson SR: Health-related quality of life among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Chest 2005, 127: 284–294. 10.1378/chest.127.1.284View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Swigris JJ, Fairclough D: Patient-reported outcomes in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis research. Chest 2012, 142: 291–297. 10.1378/chest.11-2602PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM: The St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. Respir Med 1991, 85: 25–31. 10.1016/S0954-6111(06)80166-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Yorke J, Jones PW, Swigris JJ: Development and validity testing of an IPF-specific version of the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. Thorax 2010, 65: 921–926. 10.1136/thx.2010.139121PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hays R, Revicki DA: Reliability and validity (including responsiveness). In Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd edition. Edited by: Fayers P, Hays R. Oxford University Press, New York; 2005:25–39.Google Scholar
  12. Hinkle D, Wiersma W, Jurs S: Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston; 1988.Google Scholar
  13. Antoniou KM, Nicholson AG, Dimadi M, Malagari K, Latsi P, Rapti A, Tzanakis N, Trigidou R, Polychronopoulos V, Bouros D: Long-term clinical effects of interferon gamma-1b and colchicine in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Eur Respir J 2006, 28: 496–504. 10.1183/09031936.06.00032605View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Berry CE, Drummond MB, Han MK, Li D, Fuller C, Limper AH, Martinez FJ, Schwarz MI, Sciurba FC, Wise RA: Relationship between lung function impairment and health-related quality of life in COPD and interstitial lung disease. Chest 2012, 142: 704–711. 10.1378/chest.11-1332PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang JA, Curtis JR, Patrick DL, Raghu G: Assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with interstitial lung disease. Chest 1999, 116: 1175–1182. 10.1378/chest.116.5.1175View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Du Bois RM, Weycker D, Albera C, Bradford WZ, Costabel U, Kartashov A, Lancaster L, Noble PW, Sahn SA, Szwarcberg J, Thomeer M, Valeyre D, King TE Jr: Six-minute-walk test in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: test validation and minimal clinically important difference. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011, 183: 1231–1237. 10.1164/rccm.201007-1179OCView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Han MK, Bach DS, Hagan PG, Yow E, Flaherty KR, Toews GB, Anstrom KJ, Martinez FJ: Sildenafil preserves exercise capacity in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and right-sided ventricular dysfunction. Chest 2013, 143: 1699–1708. 10.1378/chest.12-1594PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Horton MR, Santopietro V, Mathew L, Horton KM, Polito AJ, Liu MC, Danoff SK, Lechtzin N: Thalidomide for the treatment of cough in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012, 157: 398–406. 10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. King TE Jr, Behr J, Brown KK, Du Bois RM, Lancaster L, De Andrade JA, Stähler G, Leconte I, Roux S, Raghu G: BUILD-1: a randomized placebo-controlled trial of bosentan in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008, 177: 75–81. 10.1164/rccm.200705-732OCView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. King TE Jr, Albera C, Bradford WZ, Costabel U, Hormel P, Lancaster L, Noble PW, Sahn SA, Szwarcberg J, Thomeer M, Valeyre D, Du Bois RM: Effect of interferon gamma-1b on survival in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (INSPIRE): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2009, 374: 222–228. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60551-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lechtzin N, Hilliard ME, Horton MR: Validation of the Cough Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Chest 2013, 143: 1745–1749. 10.1378/chest.12-2870View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mishra A, Bhattacharya P, Paul S, Paul R, Swarnakar S: An alternative therapy for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis by doxycycline through matrix metalloproteinase inhibition. Lung India 2011, 28: 174–179. 10.4103/0970-2113.83972PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Naji NA, Connor MC, Donnelly SC, McDonnell TJ: Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in restrictive lung disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2006, 26: 237–243. 10.1097/00008483-200607000-00007View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nishiyama O, Taniguchi H, Kondoh Y, Kimura T, Ogawa T, Watanabe F, Nishimura K: Health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. What is the main contributing factor? Respir Med 2005, 99: 408–414. 10.1016/j.rmed.2004.09.005View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nishiyama O, Kondoh Y, Kimura T, Kato K, Kataoka K, Ogawa T, Watanabe F, Arizono S, Nishimura K, Taniguchi H: Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respirology 2008, 13: 394–399. 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2007.01205.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Noth I, Anstrom KJ, Calvert SB, De Andrade J, Flaherty KR, Glazer C, Kaner RJ, Olman MA: A placebo-controlled randomized trial of warfarin in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012, 186: 88–95. 10.1164/rccm.201202-0314OCPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Patel AS, Siegert RJ, Brignall K, Gordon P, Steer S, Desai SR, Maher TM, Renzoni EA, Wells AU, Higginson IJ, Birring SS: The development and validation of the King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (K-BILD) health status questionnaire. Thorax 2012, 67: 804–810. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-201581View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Peng S, Li Z, Kang J, Hou X: Cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of the Saint George’s Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with IPF. Respirology 2008, 13: 871–879. 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2008.01359.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Raghu G, Brown KK, Bradford WZ, Starko K, Noble PW, Schwartz DA, King TE Jr: A placebo-controlled trial of interferon gamma-1b in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2004, 350: 125–133. 10.1056/NEJMoa030511View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Raghu G, Brown KK, Costabel U, Cottin V, Du Bois RM, Lasky JA, Thomeer M, Utz JP, Khandker RK, McDermott L, Fatenejad S: Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with etanercept: an exploratory, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008, 178: 948–955. 10.1164/rccm.200709-1446OCView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Raghu G, Behr J, Brown KK, Egan JJ, Kawut SM, Flaherty KR, Martinez FJ, Nathan SD, Wells AU, Collard HR, Costabel U, Richeldi L, De Andrade J, Khalil N, Morrison LD, Lederer DJ, Shao L, Li X, Pedersen PS, Montgomery AB, Chien JW, O’Riordan TG: Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with ambrisentan: a parallel, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2013, 158: 641–649. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-9-201305070-00003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rammaert B, Leroy S, Cavestri B, Wallaert B, Grosbois JM: Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Rev Mal Respir 2009, 26: 275–282. 10.1016/S0761-8425(09)72584-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Richeldi L, Costabel U, Selman M, Kim DS, Hansell DM, Nicholson AG, Brown KK, Flaherty KR, Noble PW, Raghu G, Brun M, Gupta A, Juhel N, Klüglich M, Du Bois RM: Efficacy of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2011, 365: 1079–1087. 10.1056/NEJMoa1103690View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Swigris JJ, Brown KK, Behr J, Du Bois RM, King TE, Raghu G, Wamboldt FS: The SF-36 and SGRQ: validity and first look at minimum important differences in IPF. Respir Med 2010, 104: 296–304. 10.1016/j.rmed.2009.09.006PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Swigris JJ, Han M, Vij R, Noth I, Eisenstein EL, Anstrom KJ, Brown KK, Fairclough D: The UCSD shortness of breath questionnaire has longitudinal construct validity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respir Med 2012, 106: 1447–1455. 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.06.018PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tzanakis N, Samiou M, Lambiri I, Antoniou K, Siafakas N, Bouros D: Evaluation of health-related quality-of-life and dyspnea scales in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Correlation with pulmonary function tests. Eur J Intern Med 2005, 16: 105–112. 10.1016/j.ejim.2004.09.013View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tzouvelekis A, Paspaliaris V, Koliakos G, Ntolios P, Bouros E, Oikonomou A, Zissimopoulos A, Boussios N, Dardzinski B, Gritzalis D, Antoniadis A, Froudarakis M, Kolios G, Bouros D: A prospective, non-randomized, no placebo-controlled, phase Ib clinical trial to study the safety of the adipose derived stromal cells-stromal vascular fraction in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. J Transl Med 2013, 11: 171. 10.1186/1479-5876-11-171PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Verma G, Marras T, Chowdhury N, Singer L: Health-related quality of life and 6 min walk distance in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Can Respir J 2011, 18: 283–287.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Yorke J, Swigris J, Russell AM, Moosavi SH, Ng Man Kwong G, Longshaw M, Jones PW: Dyspnea-12 is a valid and reliable measure of breathlessness in patients with interstitial lung disease. Chest 2011, 139: 159–164. 10.1378/chest.10-0693PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Zimmermann CS, Carvalho CR, Silveira KR, Yamaguti WP, Moderno EV, Salge JM, Kairalla RA, Carvalho CR: Comparison of two questionnaires which measure the health-related quality of life of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients. Braz J Med Biol Res 2007, 40: 179–187. 10.1590/S0100-879X2007000200004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zisman DA, Schwarz M, Anstrom KJ, Collard HR, Flaherty KR, Hunninghake GW: A controlled trial of sildenafil in advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2010, 363: 620–628. 10.1056/NEJMoa1002110View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Mahler DA, Weinberg DH, Wells CK, Feinstein AR: The measurement of dyspnea. Contents, interobserver agreement, and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes. Chest 1984, 85: 751–758. 10.1378/chest.85.6.751View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS): Guidance for Industry. In Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims.., [www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf]
  44. Jones PW: Interpreting thresholds for a clinically significant change in health status in asthma and COPD. Eur Respir J 2002, 19: 398–404. 10.1183/09031936.02.00063702View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Jones PW: St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MCID. COPD 2005, 2: 75–79. 10.1081/COPD-200050513View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones PW, Beeh KM, Chapman KR, Decramer M, Mahler DA, Wedzicha JA: Minimal clinically important differences in pharmacological trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014, 189: 250–255. 10.1164/rccm.201310-1863PPView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kew KM, Mavergames C, Walters JA: Long-acting beta2-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013., 10:Google Scholar
  48. Cope S, Capkun-Niggli G, Gale R, Jardim JR, Jansen JP: Comparative efficacy of indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus fixed-dose combinations of formoterol + budesonide or salmeterol + fluticasone for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease–a network meta-analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2011, 6: 329–344. 10.2147/COPD.S18759PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Swigris et al.; licensee Biomed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement