Pulmonary rehabilitation in Canada: A report from the Canadian Thoracic Society COPD Clinical Assembly.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a recommended intervention in the management of individuals with chronic lung disease. It is important to study the characteristics and capacity of programs in Canada to confirm best practices and identify future areas of program improvement and research. OBJECTIVE: To identify all Canadian PR programs, regardless of setting, and to comprehensively describe all aspects of PR program delivery. The present article reports the results of the survey related to type of program, capacity and program characteristics. METHODS: All hospitals in Canada were contacted to identify PR programs. A representative from each program completed a 175-item online survey encompassing 16 domains, 10 of which are reported in the present article. RESULTS: A total of 155 facilities in Canada offered PR, of which 129 returned surveys (83% response rate). PR programs were located in all provinces, but none in the three territories. Most (60%) programs were located in hospital settings, 24% were in public health units and 8% in recreation centres. The national capacity of programs was estimated to be 10,280 patients per year, resulting in 0.4% of all Canadians with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and 0.8% of Canadians with moderate to severe COPD having access to PR. COPD, interstitial lung disease, and asthma were the most common diagnoses of patients. The majority of programs had at least four health care professionals involved; 9% had only one health care professional involved. CONCLUSION: The present comprehensive survey of PR in Canada reports an increase in the number of programs and the total number of patients enrolled since the previous survey in 2005. However, PR capacity has not kept pace with demand, with only 0.4% of Canadians with COPD having access.

Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations. METHODS: In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion. RESULTS: The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

A randomized clinical trial of lung volume reduction surgery versus best medical care for patients with advanced emphysema: a two-year study from Canada.

BACKGROUND: We present a summary report evaluating the efficacy of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in patients with advanced emphysema in the Canadian setting. METHODS: Quality of Life measures assessed the efficacy of adding LVRS to best medical care including rehabilitation in this blinded randomized multicentered controlled trial with 2 years of follow-up. Health utility and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were outcomes central to our economic assessment. RESULTS: None of the 32 patients randomized to the LVRS arm or 30 patients in the best medical care (BMC) arm crossed-over and no patients were lost to follow-up. Overall surgical mortality was 16% at 2 years while the overall medical mortality was 13% (p = 0.914). There were no 30-day postoperative deaths but 2 deaths (6%) occurred within 90 days of randomization. Surgery reduced the residual volume measured at 6 months by 23% (5,385 mL to 4,322 mL, p = 0.007). There was an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of 30% (265 mL, p = 0.013) from baseline, an improvement in the six minute walk test (6MWT) of 78 meters (p = 0.045), and an increase in Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) which peaked at 6 months with a difference of 0.16 (p = 0.129). There was a gain in QALYs of 0.21 (p = 0.19) in the LVRS-arm over the BMC-arm. The LVRS costs an additional 28,119 Canadian dollars (CAD) compared with BMC or 133,900 CAD/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of LVRS to best medical care including pulmonary rehabilitation improves pulmonary function, exercise activity, and quality of life in selected patients with advanced emphysema. Cost is high but in keeping with other treatment modalities currently available.