Protocol for a systematic review of the associations between inflammatory markers and lung function, muscle force and exercise capacity in people with COPD.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been on the rise, with acute exacerbation of COPD associated with the highest burden and multiple pulmonary and systemic consequences. People with COPD have been found to have an abnormal response of systemic inflammation. To date, although limited, there are studies that suggest negative associations between inflammatory markers and important clinical outcomes such as exercise capacity and muscle force. This protocol aims to systematically review the evidence for (i) the associations between inflammatory markers and lung function, muscle force and exercise capacity and (ii) the influence of other factors (eg, hospitalisation, exercise programme) on the level of inflammatory markers in people with COPD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and ProQuest will be searched from database inception to February 2023 using PEO search strategy (Population: adults with COPD; Exposure: inflammatory markers; Outcomes: lung function, muscle force and exercise capacity). Four reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Depending on the design of the included studies, either Cochrane risk-of-bias version 2 or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools will be used to rate the methodological quality of the included studies. Effect sizes reported in each individual study will be standardised to Cohen's d and a random effects model will be used to calculate the pooled effect size for the association. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is unnecessary as this study will only use publicly available data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022284446.

Effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite proven effectiveness for people with chronic respiratory diseases, practical barriers to attending centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (centre-PR) limit accessibility. We aimed to review the clinical effectiveness, components and completion rates of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (home-PR) compared to centre-PR or usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Cochrane methodology, we searched (January 1990 to August 2021) six electronic databases using a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study type) search strategy, assessed Cochrane risk of bias, performed meta-analysis and narrative synthesis to answer our objectives and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to rate certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 16 studies (1800 COPD patients; 11 countries). The effects of home-PR on exercise capacity and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared to either centre-PR (n=7) or usual care (n=8); one study used both comparators. Compared to usual care, home-PR significantly improved exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.88, 95% CI 0.32-1.44; p=0.002) and HRQoL (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.88--0.36; p<0.001). Compared to centre-PR, home-PR showed no significant difference in exercise capacity (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.25-0.05; p=0.21) or HRQoL (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.15-0.17; p=0.87). CONCLUSION: Home-PR is as effective as centre-PR in improving functional exercise capacity and quality of life compared to usual care, and is an option to enable access to pulmonary rehabilitation.

Clinical effectiveness and components of Home-pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) are common and disabling conditions that can result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but practical barriers to attending centre-based sessions or the need for infection control limits accessibility. Home-PR offers a potential solution that may improve access. We aim to systematically review the clinical effectiveness, completion rates and components of Home-PR for people with CRDs compared with Centre-PR or Usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for 'Chronic Respiratory Disease' AND 'Pulmonary Rehabilitation' AND 'Home-PR', and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR? ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020220137.