CATest

CAT for Healthcare Professionals

click here to print this page

Current Assessments - what's missing?

The correlation between health status and airways obstruction is poor - for example, even patients with only mild obstruction of the airways can have very poor health1.

Optimal management of COPD may be more easily achieved if the impact of the disease on a patient’s life can be measured. This cannot be done with measurements of lung function alone, and in recent years there has been an increasing focus on the requirement for a patient-reported tool that measures the impact of COPD on a patient’s life that can be used in addition to measurements of lung function. However, current assessment instruments have limitations1,2.

There is a need for a tool that is: short and simple, self-administered by patients, suitable for routine use in clinical practice, a reliable and valid measure of the impact of COPD on a patient’s life and health status3. It should ensure that patients and healthcare professionals have a common understanding of the illness’ impact, and that their priorities with regard to management are aligned. When used in conjunction with measurements of lung function, the tool should enable healthcare professionals to better optimise management.

Video Clips
Professor Paul Jones discussing the limitations of FEV1,
Professor David Price discussing the limitations of currently available assessments and the benefit of the CAT &
Professor David Price discussing the benefit of the CAT.
These files are very large and so will take some time to download. For best results please right click this link, select 'Save Target as' to download the video to your C Drive, and then play the video.

The correlation between health status and airways obstruction

This graph shows that there is a poor correlation between health status and airways obstruction, as measured by FEV11.

Questionnaires used to assess COPD

There are a number of validated questionnaires that are currently used to assess patients with COPD. These include:

  • St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)4.
  • Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)5.
  • MRC Dyspnoea Questionnaire6.

The SGRQ – while useful for clinical trials – is complex to administer and score, requires computer analysis, and is not appropriate for use in routine clinical practice. The CCQ and the MRC dyspnoea questionnaire are intended to be used routinely in clinical practice, but:

  • the CCQ measures clinical disease control, but largely from a clinician’s perspective
  • the MRC dyspnoea questionnaire measures only dyspnoea

Back to top




References

  1. Jones et al. Thorax. 2001; 56, 880-887.
  2. Jones et al. European Respiratory Journal 2009; 34: 648-654
  3. Jones et al. Primary Care Respiratory Journal 2009; 18(3): 208-215.
  4. Jones et al. Respiratory Medicine 1991; 85(Suppl. B): 25-31.
  5. van der Molen et al. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003; 1(13): 13-27.
  6. Bestall et al. Thorax 1999; 54: 581-586.

Page Last Updated: April 25, 2012

COPD Assessment Test and CAT logo is a trade mark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies.
©2009 GlaxoSmithKilne group of companies. All rights reserved.

Click Here to take the CATest
 
To print a paper version of CAT, click here. You will need Adobe Acrobat to read this file. Click here to download Adobe Acrobat.
 
If you are a healthcare professional, this guide will show you how to use the CAT in the best way.
GlaxoSmithKline

COPD Assessment Test and CAT logo is a trade mark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies.
©2009 GlaxoSmithKilne group of companies. All rights reserved.
Contact us
This website is intended for residents of the UK only.
Please read the legal notices and privacy notices.
Specific medical advice should always be sought from a qualified medical practitioner.
The development of the COPD Assessment Test was funded by GlaxoSmithKline.
GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited. Registered in England. Company No. 4310159.
Registered office: 980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9GS, United Kingdom.
Code number: UK/RESP/0014/12 April 2012.