Objective Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, yet research suggests this disease is greatly underdiagnosed. This literature review sought to summarize the most common and significant variables associated with case-finding or missed cases of COPD to inform more effective and efficient detection of high-risk COPD patients in primary care. Methods PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles describing case-finding and epidemiologic research to detect or characterize new cases of COPD. International studies in primary and non-primary care settings, published in English from 2002–2014, were eligible for inclusion. Studies related to risk factors for development of COPD were excluded. Results Of the 33 studies identified and reviewed, 21 were case-finding or screening and 12 were epidemiological, including cross-sectional, longitudinal, and retrospective designs. A range of variables were identified within and across studies. Variables common to both screening and epidemiological studies included age, smoking status, and respiratory symptoms. Seven significant predictors from epidemiologic studies did not appear in screening tools. No studies targeted discovery of higher risk patients such as those with reduced lung function or risks for exacerbations. Conclusion Variables used to identify new cases of COPD or differentiate COPD cases and non-cases are wide- ranging, (from sociodemographic to self-reported health or health history variables), providing insight into important factors for case identification. Further research is underway to develop and test the best, smallest variable set that can be used as a screening tool to identify people with undiagnosed, high-risk COPD in primary care.

Background:Many cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are diagnosed only after significant loss of lung function or during exacerbations.Aims:This study is part of a multi-method approach to develop a new screening instrument for identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care.Methods:Subjects with varied histories of COPD diagnosis, risk factors and history of exacerbations were recruited through five US clinics (four pulmonary, one primary care). Phase I: Eight focus groups and six telephone interviews were conducted to elicit descriptions of risk factors for COPD, recent or historical acute respiratory events, and symptoms to inform the development of candidate items for the new questionnaire. Phase II: A new cohort of subjects participated in cognitive interviews to assess and modify candidate items. Two peak expiratory flow (PEF) devices (electronic, manual) were assessed for use in screening.Results:Of 77 subjects, 50 participated in Phase I and 27 in Phase II. Six themes informed item development: exposure (smoking, second-hand smoke); health history (family history of lung problems, recurrent chest infections); recent history of respiratory events (clinic visits, hospitalisations); symptoms (respiratory, non-respiratory); impact (activity limitations); and attribution (age, obesity). PEF devices were rated easy to use; electronic values were significantly higher than manual (P<0.0001). Revisions were made to the draft items on the basis of cognitive interviews.Conclusions:Forty-eight candidate items are ready for quantitative testing to select the best, smallest set of questions that, together with PEF, can efficiently identify patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD.

IntroductionBasal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of skin cancer; however, few data are available relating to patients’ perspectives and experiences of this disease. This study explored the spectrum of BCC symptoms and their impact by disease stage to determine how BCC affects the overall health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients.MethodsThis study comprised a cross-sectional, qualitative approach involving telephone interviews with patients with BCC who had been divided into two groups: group 1 (G1), patients with stage 1, non-advanced BCC (and of superficial or nodular histology); and group 2 (G2), patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC. Patients were recruited from three clinical sites in the USA based on a separate qualitative interview study (I4J-MC-HHBB [1.3]) over a 10-month period. Techniques in qualitative methodology were used by applying ‘open-ended’ questions and probing techniques intended to elicit patients’ own description of their experiences with BCC. Telephone interviews lasted between 60 and 90 mins.ResultsThirty-four interviews were conducted (G1: N = 13; G2: N = 21). The majority of patients were aged either 55–64 years (32%, N = 11) or 76+ years (32%, N = 11) and were primarily male (82%, N = 28); most (75%, N = 24) patients were actively receiving BCC treatment. Both groups reported similar symptoms, with the most common being red lesions or open sores that failed to heal (41%, N = 14) and cancer-related stress (41%, N = 14). G2 reported more frequent and severe HRQL impact as a result of their cancer condition because most were affected in their daily activities (76%, N = 16) or emotional well-being (71%, N = 15). Cosmetic and functional impacts were relevant and important aspects of HRQL for both patient groups (G1: 31%, N = 4; G2: 48%, N = 10).ConclusionsPatients with non-advanced or locally advanced and metastatic BCC experience disease-related symptoms that affect their HRQL, activities of daily living, emotional well-being, and social and/or leisure activities. Qualitative descriptions of patient experiences can help healthcare providers and caregivers better understand the impact of BCC from the patient perspective.FundingEli Lilly and Company.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13555-015-0081-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundEngaging adolescents in decisions about their health may enhance their compliance with treatment and result in better health outcomes. Treatment outcomes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are rarely evaluated from the adolescents’ point of view. There is also concern that adolescents with ADHD may not have insight about the impacts of their disease. This article describes research conducted to understand the experiences of adolescents with ADHD and how the research was used to develop an adolescent self-report instrument.MethodsThis research involved an iterative process to ensure content validity and was conducted in the following stages: concept identification from literature reviews and interviews with teachers and clinicians; concept elicitation interviews with adolescents with ADHD and their caregivers, review of existing instruments; development of a new instrument and cognitive interviews. Experts in instrument development and translation and clinical practitioners in ADHD also participated.ResultsA conceptual framework to measure the impact of ADHD on adolescent functioning identified from concept identification research informed concept elicitation interviews with 60 adolescents with ADHD and their primary caregivers. In the interviews, adolescents discussed difficulties with performing activities in various contexts: school, home, leisure activities and social interactions. Caregivers provided additional insights. The instrument review revealed that none of the existing instruments were suitable to collect data on the elicited concepts; therefore, a new instrument was developed. Revisions were made to the format and content of the instrument (a daily diary) based on feedback received from cognitive testing with 15 adolescents.ConclusionsOur research helped to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of ADHD on adolescent functioning, to inform the development of a new instrument for measuring outcomes. Adolescents were able to discuss the impact of ADHD on their lives in concept elicitation interviews and report the impacts of ADHD on a self-report instrument. The new instrument developed to reflect the perspective of adolescents with ADHD can be used to supplement outcome assessments in clinic and research settings. Scientific advocacy for the use of such measures can be valuable to measure outcomes meaningful to adolescents with ADHD and the clinical community.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis feasibility of clinical, quality of life and economic evidence for neurotrophic tropomyosin-related receptor tyrosine kinases ( NTRK) inhibitors in patients with NTRK gene fusion-positive tumors. Materials & methods: Databases were searched for studies on NTRK inhibitors in adult and pediatric patients. Results: 27 publications reported clinical data for seven interventions. Efficacy/safety data were available for two interventions only. Four trials each reported data for larotrectinib and entrectinib with pooled analyses reporting objective response rates of 75% (95% CI: 61–85) and 57.4% (43.2–70.8), respectively. No publications reported economic or quality of life evidence. Conclusion: Preliminary data demonstrate that NTRK inhibitors are well tolerated and show impressive clinical benefit; corroboration of existing studies and real-world data are required.