Blog
About

1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of Unsupervised Home-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a well-established treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The standard protocol for PR requires frequent hospital visits, which can be difficult for patients. We performed this study to assess whether unsupervised home-based PR (HBPR) is effective for patients with COPD.

          Patients and Methods

          After assessing the outcome data, including the results of a COPD assessment test (CAT); the body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (BODE) index; a spirometry; the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale; and the 6-min walking test (6MWT), specialists imparted 1-hour education to patients regarding unsupervised HBPR at the baseline visit. This included methods for breathing, inhaler use, stretching, and exercise. On reviewing diaries after 8 weeks from the first visit, patients who exercised at least thrice per week were classified as the compliant group and the others were categorized as the noncompliant group. Changes in the outcomes were compared between the compliant and noncompliant groups.

          Results

          A total of 41 patients were enrolled in this study; for 8 weeks of unsupervised HBPR, there were significant improvements in CAT scores (−4.62±4.61 vs 2.40±6.73; P=0.002), BODE index (−1.00±1.06 vs −0.20±0.56; P=0.01), and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (0.05±0.19 vs −0.09±0.16; P=0.02) among patients in the compliant group, compared with the noncompliant group. Moreover, their CAT (16.46±7.80 vs 11.85±7.23; P=0.03) and mMRC scores (2.54±0.76 vs 1.81±0.63; P=0.001) improved significantly after 8 weeks, compared with those at baseline. On the other hand, patients in the noncompliant group showed no significant improvement in any of the outcomes.

          Conclusion

          In this study, compliant patients with unsupervised HBPR achieved favorable outcomes in 8 weeks. Thus, we recommend unsupervised HBPR for patients with COPD, even when regular hospital visits for PR are not possible.

          Trial Registration

          NCT03754881.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Physical activity is the strongest predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with COPD: a prospective cohort study.

          Systemic effects of COPD are incompletely reflected by established prognostic assessments. We determined the prognostic value of objectively measured physical activity in comparison with established predictors of mortality and evaluated the prognostic value of noninvasive assessments of cardiovascular status, biomarkers of systemic inflammation, and adipokines. In a prospective cohort study of 170 outpatients with stable COPD (mean FEV(1), 56% predicted), we assessed lung function by spirometry and body plethysmography; physical activity level (PAL) by a multisensory armband; exercise capacity by 6-min walk distance test; cardiovascular status by echocardiography, vascular Doppler sonography (ankle-brachial index [ABI]), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level; nutritional and muscular status by BMI and fat-free mass index; biomarkers by levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, IL-6, fibrinogen, adiponectin, and leptin; and health status, dyspnea, and depressive symptoms by questionnaire. Established prognostic indices were calculated. The median follow-up was 48 months (range, 10-53 months). All-cause mortality was 15.4%. After adjustments, each 0.14 increase in PAL was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.64; P < .001). Compared with established predictors, PAL showed the best discriminative properties for 4-year survival (C statistic, 0.81) and was associated with the highest relative risk of death per standardized decrease. Novel predictors of mortality were adiponectin level (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.71; P = .017), leptin level (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .042), right ventricular function (Tei-index) (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .020), and ABI < 1.00 (HR, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.44-10.40; P = .007). A stepwise Cox regression revealed that the best model of independent predictors was PAL, adiponectin level, and ABI. The composite of these factors further improved the discriminative properties (C statistic, 0.85). We found that objectively measured physical activity is the strongest predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with COPD. In addition, adiponectin level and vascular status provide independent prognostic information in our cohort.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Tiotropium and olodaterol in the prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (DYNAGITO): a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, active-controlled trial

            Combinations of long-acting bronchodilators are recommended to reduce the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. It is unclear whether combining olodaterol, a long-acting beta-agonist, with tiotropium, a long-acting anti-muscarinic, reduces the rate of exacerbations compared with tiotropium alone.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Minimal clinically important differences in pharmacological trials.

              The concept of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is well established. Here, we review the evidence base and methods used to define MCIDs as well as their strengths and limitations. Most MCIDs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are empirically derived estimates applying to populations of patients. Validated MCIDs are available for many commonly used outcomes in COPD, including lung function (100 ml for trough FEV1), dyspnea (improvement of ≥ 1 unit in the Transition Dyspnea Index total score or 5 units in the University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire), health status (reduction of 4 units in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score), and exercise capacity (47.5 m for the incremental shuttle walking test, 45-85 s for the endurance shuttle walking test, and 46-105 s for constant-load cycling endurance tests), but there is currently no validated MCID for exacerbations. In a clinical trial setting, many factors, including study duration, withdrawal rate, baseline severity, and Hawthorne effects, can influence the measured treatment effect and determine whether it reaches the MCID. We also address recent challenges presented by clinical trials that compare active treatments and suggest that MCIDs should be used to identify the additional proportion of patients who benefit, for example, when one drug is replaced by another or when a second drug is added to a first. We propose the term "minimum worthwhile incremental advantage" to describe this parameter.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                copd
                copd
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                28 September 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 2297-2305
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine , Seoul, Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Sei Won Lee Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine , Songpa-Gu, Seoul05505, Republic of Korea Email iseiwon@gmail.com
                Article
                268683
                10.2147/COPD.S268683
                7532041
                © 2020 Lee et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 6, References: 40, Pages: 9
                Funding
                Funded by: the Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea;
                This study was supported by grants (2018-0964) from the Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article