Trial reportJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Justifying score interpretation thresholds for the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) in a contemporary asthma patient population.
Trial report in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05104892 (A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, 12 Week Proof-of-Concept), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, 12 Week Proof-of-Concept (PoC) Study to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Rilzabrutinib in Participants With Moderate-to-severe Asthma Who Are Not Well Controlled on Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS) Plus Long-acting β2 Adrenergic Agonist (LABA) Therapy
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) is widely used in clinical trials to assess the adequacy of asthma symptom control and any changes in asthma control as a result of treatment. Evidence supporting the psychometric properties of the ACQ-5, including a 0.5-threshold for meaningful improvement, was derived using methods that are no longer recommended in the literature or by regulatory authorities. The primary objective of this research was to derive meaningful change estimates using contemporary methods to evaluate clinically important change for the ACQ-5. A secondary objective was to evaluate the applicability of the existing ACQ-5 asthma control threshold for defining "well-controlled" asthma (ACQ-5 ≤ 0.75).
methodsMeasurement properties (item performance, reliability, validity, and responsiveness) were assessed prior to evaluating meaningful change, using data from a sample of 196 adults with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma from a placebo-controlled, Phase 2 study of rilzabrutinib (NCT05104892). Anchor- and distribution-based analyses were used to derive meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) and meaningful between-group difference (MBGD). Applicability of the existing ACQ-5 asthma control threshold was evaluated by plotting the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ACQ-5 total score in the current study against the PPV and NPV calculated in the original Juniper et al. (2006) study.
resultsHigh internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90), moderate-to-strong convergent validity (r range: 0.52-0.83), and ability to detect improvements in asthma control based on psychometric and physiological measures were demonstrated for the ACQ-5. Test-retest reliability results were poor-to-moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient range: 0.30-0.66). Of the anchor-based estimates derived (0.2 to 1.6), empirical cumulative distribution function plots supported 0.6 or 0.8 as appropriate MWPC thresholds. Estimated MBGD ranged from 0.2 to 0.6. PPV/NPV plots supported continued use of a 0.75- threshold to determine "well-controlled" asthma.
conclusionContemporary score interpretation methods support a MWPC threshold of ≥ 0.6, which is functionally identical to the extant threshold of ≥ 0.5, given the 0.2 increments of the ACQ-5 scale. MBGD ranged from 0.2 to 0.6, further supporting use of the established ≥ 0.5 threshold to define clinically important change between groups of patients. A "well-controlled" threshold of ≤ 0.75 was also supported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.