Abstract
Introduction:
The Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-Juniper) is widely used as a clinical endpoint in clinical trials. It has been validated for use in adults, but not in children.
Aims:
To carry out a pilot project look at the acceptability of carrying out the ACQ in children in a primary care setting and the correlation of the ACQ score with other measures of asthma control.
Methods:
15 children (age range 6–16 yrs and median ICS dose 200 mcg BDP (or equivalent) attending 2 primary care asthma clinics in the United Kingdom were enrolled. Assessments were made at 2 -weekly intervals over 12 weeks. The 6-question ACQ was used together with RCP 3 Questions, FEV1, miniAsthma Quality of Life Questionnaire(mini-AQLQ) Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PALQ), bronchodilator use and exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) levels. Routine clinical care was allowed to continue.
Results:
105 measurements of ACQ were made over the 12 week period. The questionnaire was easy to complete although younger children needed some help with interpretation from their parents. There was a strong cross-sectional correlation with PAQLQ (Spearmann's rank correlation r = 0.85 p < 0.001), moderate correlation with the RCP 3 questions (r = 0.4 p< 0.001) and bronchodilator use (r = 0.4. p < 0.001) and weak or no correlation with eNO (r = 0.20 p < 0.05) and FEV-1% predicted (r = −0.12, ns) There was a strong longitudinal correlation between changes in ACQ and change in PALQ (r= 0.66, p<0.001), moderate correlation between changes in RCP 3 question score (r= 0.48, p < 0.001) and bronchodilator use (r = 0.42, p < 0.01). There was no correlation with changes in eNO (r = 0.15, ns) and FEV-1% predicted (r= 0.02, ns).
Conclusion:
The 6- question ACQ is easy to use in children age 6–16 with asthma although parental help may be needed for younger children. It shows cross-sectional and longitudinal validity with some other parameters of asthma control. A larger multi-centre validation study in primary care is planned.
Conflict of interest and funding
No. Funding: Funded by RCGP, United Kingdom.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (309.2 KB).