The validity and reliability of a Thai version of the Angioedema Control Test: Which recall period is preferable?
Issued Date
2025-09-01
Resource Type
ISSN
0125877X
eISSN
22288694
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105020701499
Pubmed ID
36592165
Journal Title
Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology
Volume
43
Issue
3
Start Page
504
End Page
512
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology Vol.43 No.3 (2025) , 504-512
Suggested Citation
Chularojanamontri L., Kulthanan K., Tuchinda P., Rujitharanawong C., Munprom K., Pochanapan O., Panjapakkul W., Maurer M., Weller K. The validity and reliability of a Thai version of the Angioedema Control Test: Which recall period is preferable?. Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology Vol.43 No.3 (2025) , 504-512. 512. doi:10.12932/ap-270822-1442 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/113004
Title
The validity and reliability of a Thai version of the Angioedema Control Test: Which recall period is preferable?
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: The Angioedema Control Test (AECT) is a questionnaire that monitors disease control in patients with angioedema, with a recall period of 4 weeks (AECT-4wk) or 3 months (AECT-3mo). Objective: This study investigated the psychometric properties of a Thai version of the AECT. Methods: Of 54 patients, 46, 5, 2, and 1 had recurrent angioedema with chronic spontaneous urticaria, hereditary angioedema, idiopathic histaminergic angioedema, and acquired angioedema due to C1 esterase inhibitor deficiency, respectively. The AECT, Angioedema Activity Score (AAS), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE-QoL), and anchors for disease control (numeric rating scale [NRS] and patient global assessment-Likert scale [PatGA-LS]) were used. The patients rated the efficacy of their treatment. Results: Fifty-four and 47 patients completed the AECT-4wk and AECT-3mo, respectively. Both AECT versions showed significant correlations with disease activity (AAS, r = 0.6–0.8), disease control (NRS and PatGA-LS, r = 0.7–0.9), and quality of life impairment (DLQI and AE-QoL, r = 0.6–0.8). Higher correlations were found for the AECT-4wk than for the AECT-3mo. Excellent internal consistency (alpha = 0.98 and 0.97, respectively) and intraclass correlation (0.96 and 0.94, respectively) were found. A cutoff ≥ 10 was confirmed to identify patients with well-controlled disease for both AECT versions (AUCs = 0.89 and 0.97). Conclusion: The Thai version of the AECT is a valid and reliable tool for clinical practice. Due to the shorter recall period, the AECT-4wk may be more accurate than, and preferable to, the AECT-3mo. A cutoff ≥ 10 should be used to identify patients with well-controlled disease.