Pulmonary Rehabilitation Outcomes of Post-Acute COVID-19 Patients during Different Waves of the Pandemic.

(1) Background: Between the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and summer 2022, we distinguished four pandemic waves, with different characteristics of the affected patients. This study investigated the impact of patient characteristics on the outcome of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). (2) Methods: Using a prospective approach, the characteristics of post-acute COVID-19 patients of the different waves who participated in inpatient PR were compared based on their assessments and results collected as part of PR (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), six-minute walk test (6-MWT), Pulmonary Function Testing (PFT), and Functional Independent Measurement (FIM). (3) Results: A total of 483 patients were included in the analysis (Wave 1 n = 51, Wave 2 n = 202, Wave 3 n = 84, Wave 4 n = 146). Compared to Wave 3 + 4, patients of Wave 1 + 2 were older (69 vs. 63 years; p < 0.001), had a significantly lower CIRS (13.0 vs. 14.7 points; p = 0.004), had significant better PFT (FVC: 73 vs. 68%pred; p = 0.009; DLCOSB: 58 ± 18 vs. 50 ± 17%pred; p = 0.001), and showed significantly more comorbidities (2.0 vs. 1.6 n/pers.; p = 0.009). Wave 3 + 4 showed significantly greater improvements according to the 6-MWT (147 vs. 188 m; p < 0.001) and the FIM (5.6 vs. 21.1 points; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Patients of the COVID-19 infection waves differed significantly according to their anthropometric data, incidence of comorbidities, and impact of the infection. All cohorts achieved clinically relevant and significant functional improvements during PR, with significant higher improvements in Wave 3 + 4.

Using a smartphone application maintains physical activity following pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients with COPD struggle to maintain improved physical activity (PA) after completing pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Smartphone applications (apps) providing a comprehensive training programme have conferred healthy benefits. This study was conducted to determine whether regular usage of an app maintains PA following PR. METHODS: Patients with stage II-IV COPD were enrolled in a 6-month trial following PR. After the screening period, participants were randomised into the Kaia COPD app group (intervention group (IG)) or the control group (CG). The primary outcome was PA (daily steps), measured using an activity tracker. Secondary outcomes included the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) and the 1 min Sit-to-Stand Test (STST). RESULTS: Sixty participants completed the study. The median steps from baseline to 6 months were significantly different between the groups, in favour of the IG (-105.3, IQR -1970.1 to 2105.8, vs CG -1173.0, IQR -3813.1 to -93.8; p=0.007). CAT was significantly decreased in the IG (15.1±8.6 vs 19.7±6.4, p=0.02), whereas the CRQ subdomains for dyspnoea (4.5±1.7 vs 3.7±1.3, p=0.033) and fatigue (4.5±1.4 vs 3.5±1.3, p=0.028) improved significantly in the IG. The STST at 6 months was not significant. Sleep duration and sleep efficiency showed no significant differences between the two groups at any time. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive program by using the Kaia app following PR maintained PA and improved symptoms in patients with COPD at 6 months. The app might be an important accessory tool for enhanced COPD care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00017275.

Effectiveness of a Long-term Home-Based Exercise Training Program in Patients With COPD After Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with COPD do not maintain exercise training after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a 12-month home-based, minimal-equipment strength training program after PR have an effect on dyspnea, exercise capacity, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a parallel-arm multicenter study across four Swiss PR clinics, patients with COPD were allocated randomly (1:1 ratio) into an intervention group (IG; home-based strength training program) or control group (CG; usual care). The primary outcome was change in Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnea scale score from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in exercise capacity (1-min sit-to-stand-test [1MSTST], 6-min walk test [6MWT]), health-related quality of life, exacerbations, and symptoms. We assessed the IG's experience by interviews at study end. Main analyses were based on the intention-to-treat approach, and adjusted linear regression models were used. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients with COPD (IG, n = 61; CG, n = 62) were randomized, 61 of whom were women and whose mean ± SD age was 66.8 ± 8.1 years and mean ± SD FEV1 was 39.3 ± 15.3% predicted. One hundred four participants completed 12 months of follow-up (IG, n= 53; CG, n= 51). Of the 53 IG participants, 37 participants (70%) conducted the training until study end. We found no difference in change in CRQ dyspnea scale score over 12 months (adjusted mean difference, 0.28; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.80; P = .27). We found moderate evidence for a difference in 1MSTST repetitions favoring the IG (adjusted mean difference, 2.6; 95% CI, 0.22-5.03; P = .033), but no evidence for an effect in other outcomes. Seventy-nine percent of the IG reported positive effects that they attributed to the training. INTERPRETATION: The home exercise program had no effect on dyspnea, but improved 1MSTST performance and patient-perceived fitness. The supported program was well accepted by patients with COPD and may facilitate continued exercise training at home. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03461887; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Clinical and Functional Predictors of Response to a Comprehensive Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Severe Post-COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following severe and very severe COVID-19 infection is known to be effective, according to typical assessments. However, not all patients benefit from PR to the same extent. This analysis aimed to identify the impact of different factors on PR outcomes in post-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study included 184 post-COVID-19 patients. The achievement of the predicted reference walking distance (6 min walking distance (6-MWD)) served as a parameter with which to identify responders and non-responders to PR. Several parameters (e.g., Functional Independent Measurement (FIM); pulmonary function testing (Forced Vital Capacity, FVC); 6MWD) were assessed in order to estimate their impact on PR success. Logistic regression models and classification and regression trees were used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients (51%) reached their reference 6MWD by the end of PR. FVC (0.95 (0.93-0.97)), 6MWD at admission (0.99 (0.99-1.00)), and FIM motoric (0.96 (0.93-0.99)) correlated with the risk not reaching the reference distance. The most important variable was the 6MWD at admission. Classification and regression tree identified 6MWD ≥ 130 m at admission and FVC predicted of >83% as the strongest predictor for reaching predicted 6-MWD. CONCLUSION: Post-COVID-19 patients with lower 6MWD, lower motoric FIM scores and lower FVC at admission have a high risk of not reaching their target values of physical performance despite intensive rehabilitation. As well as identifying them, it is of utmost importance to develop optimal PR concepts for these patients.