PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - P.M. O’Byrne
AU  - H.K. Reddel
AU  - G. Eriksson
AU  - O. Östlund
AU  - S. Peterson
AU  - M.R. Sears
AU  - C. Jenkins
AU  - M. Humbert
AU  - R. Buhl
AU  - T.W. Harrison
AU  - S. Quirce
AU  - E.D. Bateman
TI  - Measuring asthma control: a comparison of three classification systems
AID  - 10.1183/09031936.00124009
DP  - 2010 Aug 01
TA  - European Respiratory Journal
PG  - 269--276
VI  - 36
IP  - 2
4099  - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/36/2/269.short
4100  - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/36/2/269.full
SO  - Eur Respir J2010 Aug 01; 36
AB  - There are various ways to classify asthma control; however, no classification is universally accepted. This retrospective analysis compared asthma control as assessed by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (5-item version; ACQ-5), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) or Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study criteria. Pooled data at the final study week (n = 8,188) from three budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy studies which measured ACQ-5 were stratified according to GINA or GOAL criteria and ACQ-5 score distribution. The percentages of patients with a controlled/partly controlled week (GINA), totally/well-controlled week (GOAL) and range of ACQ-5 cut-off points were compared. Patients with GINA controlled, partly controlled and uncontrolled asthma had mean ACQ-5 scores of 0.43, 0.75 and 1.62, respectively. Patients with GOAL totally controlled, well-controlled and uncontrolled asthma had ACQ-5 scores of 0.39, 0.78 and 1.63. The kappa measure of agreement was 0.80 for GINA and GOAL criteria, and 0.63 for GINA controlled/partly controlled and ACQ-5 <1.00. ACQ-5 detected clinically important improvements in 49% of patients who, according to GINA criteria, remained uncontrolled at the end of the study. Asthma control measured by GINA or GOAL criteria provides similar results. GINA Controlled/Partly Controlled and GOAL Totally Controlled/Well-Controlled correspond to ACQ-5 <1.00. The ACQ-5 is more responsive to change in a clinical trial setting than a categorical scale.