The importance of addressing physical activity and exercise intolerance in our patients with COPD.

Both increased physical activity and increased exercise capacity are desired outcomes in the treatment of individuals with COPD https://bit.ly/4apLYzm.

Prevalence and prognostic importance of exercise limitation and physical inactivity in COPD.

Exercise limitation and physical inactivity are separate, but related constructs. Both are commonly present in individuals with COPD, contribute to disease burden over and above the respiratory impairments, and are independently predictive of adverse outcomes. Because of this, clinicians should consider assessing these variables in their patients with COPD. Field tests of exercise performance such as the 6-min walk test and the incremental and endurance shuttle walk tests require limited additional resources, and results correlate with negative outcomes. Laboratory measures of exercise performance using a treadmill or cycle ergometer assess exercise capacity, provide prognostic information and have the advantage of explaining physiological mechanisms (and their interactions) underpinning exercise limitation. Limitations in exercise capacity (i.e. "cannot do") and physical inactivity (i.e. "do not do") are both associated with mortality; exercise limitation appears to be the more important driver of this outcome.

Unravelling the complex interplay of factors behind exercise limitations and physical inactivity in COPD.

Exercise limitation and physical inactivity are known treatable traits for people with COPD. Maximising exercise capacity and keeping people physically active improves health status and survival rates among people with COPD. However, managing these two treatable traits can be extremely challenging for clinicians due to the complex intersectionality of factors influencing an individual's capacity, opportunity and motivation to engage in physical activity. This review presents the complex factors influencing exercise capacity ("can do"), levels of physical activity ("do do") and sedentary behaviours amongst people with COPD and provides practical recommendations on how clinicians can address some of these factors in practice. Most importantly, it highlights the importance of referring to pulmonary rehabilitation as a way to improve exercise capacity among people with COPD.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Mechanisms of Functional Loss and Benefits of Exercise.

Exercise limitation is a characteristic feature of chronic respiratory diseases such as COPD and is associated with poor outcomes including decreased functional status and health-related quality of life and increased mortality. The mechanisms responsible for exercise limitation are complex and include ventilatory limitation, cardiovascular impairment, and skeletal muscle dysfunction. In addition, comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease are common in this population and can further impact exercise capacity. Exercise training, a core component of pulmonary rehabilitation, improves exercise capacity by addressing many of these mechanisms that, in turn, can potentially slow the decline of lung function, reduce the frequency of exacerbations, and decrease mortality. This article will discuss the mechanisms of exercise limitation in individuals with chronic respiratory disease, primarily focusing on COPD, and provide an overview of exercise training and its benefits in this patient population.

COPD: Providing the right treatment for the right patient at the right time.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a common disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality that is both preventable and treatable. However, a major challenge in recognizing, preventing, and treating COPD is understanding its complexity. While COPD has historically been characterized as a disease defined by airflow limitation, we now understand it as a multi-component disease with many clinical phenotypes, systemic manifestations, and associated co-morbidities. Evidence is rapidly emerging in our understanding of the many factors that contribute to the pathogenesis of COPD and the identification of "early" or "pre-COPD" which should provide exciting opportunities for early treatment and disease modification. In addition to breakthroughs in our understanding of the origins of COPD, we are optimizing treatment strategies and delivery of care that are showing impressive benefits in patient-centered outcomes and healthcare utilization. This special issue of Respiratory Medicine, "COPD: Providing the Right Treatment for the Right Patient at the Right Time" is a summary of the proceedings of a conference held in Stresa, Italy in April 2022 that brought together international experts to discuss emerging evidence in COPD and Pulmonary Rehabilitation in honor of a distinguished friend and colleague, Claudio Ferdinando Donor (1948-2021). Claudio was a true pioneer in the field of pulmonary rehabilitation and the comprehensive care of individuals with COPD. He held numerous leadership roles in in the field, provide editorial stewardship of several respiratory journals, authored numerous papers, statement and guidelines in COPD and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and provided mentorship to many in our field. Claudio's most impressive talent was his ability to organize spectacular conferences and symposia that highlighted cutting edge science and clinical medicine. It is in this spirit that this conference was conceived and planned. These proceedings are divided into 4 sections which highlight crucial areas in the field of COPD: (1) New concepts in COPD pathogenesis; (2) Enhancing outcomes in COPD; (3) Non-pharmacologic management of COPD; and (4) Optimizing delivery of care for COPD. These presentations summarize the newest evidence in the field and capture lively discussion on the exciting future of treating this prevalent and impactful disease. We thank each of the authors for their participation and applaud their efforts toward pushing the envelope in our understanding of COPD and optimizing care for these patients. We believe that this edition is a most fitting tribute to a dear colleague and friend and will prove useful to students, clinicians, and researchers as they continually strive to provide the right treatment for the right patient at the right time. It has been our pleasure and a distinct honor to serve as editors and oversee such wonderful scholarly work.

Receipt of Tobacco Treatment and One-Year Smoking Cessation Rates Following Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of effective smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening has been identified as a high-priority research gap, but knowledge of current practices to guide process improvement is limited due to the slow uptake of screening and dearth of data to assess cessation-related practices and outcomes under real-world conditions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cessation treatment receipt and 1-year post-screening cessation outcomes within the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA-the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Design Observational study using administrative data from electronic medical records (EMR). Patients Currently smoking Veterans who received a first lung cancer screening test using low-dose CT (LDCT) between January 2014 and June 2018. Main Outcomes Tobacco treatment received within the window of 30 days before and 30 days after LDCT; 1-year quit rates based on EMR Smoking Health Factors data 6-18 months after LDCT. Key Results Of the 47,609 current smokers screened (95.3% male), 8702 (18.3%) received pharmacotherapy and/or behavioral treatment for smoking cessation; 531 (1.1%) received both. Of those receiving pharmacotherapy, only one in four received one of the most effective medications: varenicline (12.1%) or combination nicotine replacement therapy (14.3%). Overall, 5400 Veterans quit smoking-a rate of 11.3% (missing=smoking) or 13.5% (complete case analysis). Treatment receipt and cessation were associated with numerous sociodemographic, clinical, and screening-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: One-year quit rates for Veterans receiving lung cancer screening in VHA are similar to those reported in LDCT clinical trials and cohort studies (i.e., 10-17%). Only 1% of Veterans received the recommended combination of pharmacotherapy and counseling, and the most effective pharmacotherapies were not the most commonly received ones. The value of screening within VHA could be improved by addressing these treatment gaps, as well as the observed disparities in treatment receipt or cessation by race, rurality, and psychiatric conditions.

Diagnostic Performance of the Herder Model in Veterans Undergoing PET Scans for Pulmonary Nodule Evaluation.

British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines recommend using the Herder model to risk-stratify lung nodules after positron emission tomography (PET). However, this approach has not been adequately evaluated, particularly among Veterans. A single-center retrospective cohort study was carried out in U.S. Veterans with pulmonary nodules assessed by PET to validate the Herder model; decision analysis using risk thresholds from the BTS guidelines was performed. One hundred subjects met inclusion criteria. Area under the curve of the Herder model for predicting malignancy was 0.87 for all lung nodules and 0.90 for newly discovered nodules. For low- and high-risk lung nodules, BTS guidelines would have recommended appropriate care in this patient cohort.

The Role of Telemedicine in Extending and Enhancing Medical Management of the Patient with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Medical management of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patient must incorporate a broadened and holistic approach to achieve optimal outcomes. This is best achieved with integrated care, which is based on the chronic care model of disease management, proactively addressing the patient's unique medical, social, psychological, and cognitive needs along the trajectory of the disease. While conceptually appealing, integrated care requires not only a different approach to disease management, but considerably more health care resources. One potential way to reduce this burden of care is telemedicine: technology that allows for the bidirectional transfer of important clinical information between the patient and health care providers across distances. This not only makes medical services more accessible; it may also enhance the efficiency of delivery and quality of care. Telemedicine includes distinct, often overlapping interventions, including telecommunication (enhancing lines of communication), telemonitoring (symptom reporting or the transfer of physiological data to health care providers), physical activity monitoring and feedback to the patient and provider, remote decision support systems (identifying "red flags," such as the onset of an exacerbation), tele-consultation (directing assessment and care from a distance), tele-education (through web-based educational or self-management platforms), tele-coaching, and tele-rehabilitation (providing educational material, exercise training, or even total pulmonary rehabilitation at a distance when standard, center-based rehabilitation is not feasible). While the above components of telemedicine are conceptually appealing, many have had inconsistent results in scientific trials. Interventions with more consistently favorable results include those potentially modifying physical activity, non-invasive ventilator management, and tele-rehabilitation. More inconsistent results in other telemedicine interventions do not necessarily mean they are ineffective; rather, more data on refining the techniques may be necessary. Until more outcome data are available clinicians should resist being caught up in novel technologies simply because they are new.

Defining Modern Pulmonary Rehabilitation. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is a highly effective treatment for people with chronic lung disease but remains underused across the world. Recent years have seen the emergence of new program models that aim to improve access and uptake, including telerehabilitation and low-cost, home-based models. This workshop was convened to achieve consensus on the essential components of pulmonary rehabilitation and to identify requirements for successful implementation of emerging program models. A Delphi process involving experts from across the world identified 13 essential components of pulmonary rehabilitation that must be delivered in any program model, encompassing patient assessment, program content, method of delivery, and quality assurance, as well as 27 desirable components. Only those models of pulmonary rehabilitation that have been tested in clinical trials are currently considered as ready for implementation. The characteristics of patients most likely to succeed in each program model are not yet known, and research is needed in this area. Health professionals should use clinical judgment to determine those patients who are best served by a center-based, multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. A comprehensive patient assessment is critical for personalization of pulmonary rehabilitation and for effectively addressing individual patient goals. Robust quality-assurance processes are important to ensure that any pulmonary rehabilitation service delivers optimal outcomes for patients and health services. Workforce capacity-building and training should consider the skills necessary for emerging models, many of which are delivered remotely. The success of all pulmonary rehabilitation models will be judged on whether the essential components are delivered and on whether the expected patient outcomes, including improved exercise capacity, reduced dyspnea, enhanced health-related quality of life, and reduced hospital admissions, are achieved.

Triple Therapy versus Dual or Monotherapy with Long-Acting Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the use of using triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist) inhaler therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance.Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate the safety and efficacy of using triple therapy compared with long-acting ß-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist dual therapy or monotherapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator in patients with stable COPD who complained of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance.Methods: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials pertaining to the clinical question. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the studies. The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty/quality of the evidence.Results: Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 14,145 patients). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed an increase in risk of pneumonia (relative risk, 1.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.20-1.80; P < 0.001) and decreased risk of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82; P < 0.001) with triple therapy compared with treatment with dual and monotherapy long-acting bronchodilator therapy. No significant difference in dyspnea scores (standardized mean difference, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.19; P = 0.09) or risk of hospitalization (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06; P = 0.11) was noted. When subgroup analysis based on inhaler class was performed, no significant difference was noted between the groups in any of the critical outcomes studied. For patients with a history of one or more AECOPDs in the past year, triple therapy resulted in 230 fewer AECOPDs and 16 more cases of pneumonia per 1,000 patients.Conclusions: In patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, triple therapy is not superior to maintenance long-acting bronchodilator therapy, except in patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year, in whom the benefits of reduction in AECOPD outweigh the increased risk of pneumonia.

Restoring Pulmonary and Sleep Services as the COVID-19 Pandemic Lessens. From an Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors and American Thoracic Society-coordinated Task Force.

Background: In March 2020, many elective medical services were canceled in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The daily case rate is now declining in many states and there is a need for guidance about the resumption of elective clinical services for patients with lung disease or sleep conditions.Methods: Volunteers were solicited from the Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors and American Thoracic Society. Working groups developed plans by discussion and consensus for resuming elective services in pulmonary and sleep-medicine clinics, pulmonary function testing laboratories, bronchoscopy and procedure suites, polysomnography laboratories, and pulmonary rehabilitation facilities.Results: The community new case rate should be consistently low or have a downward trajectory for at least 14 days before resuming elective clinical services. In addition, institutions should have an operational strategy that consists of patient prioritization, screening, diagnostic testing, physical distancing, infection control, and follow-up surveillance. The goals are to protect patients and staff from exposure to the virus, account for limitations in staff, equipment, and space that are essential for the care of patients with COVID-19, and provide access to care for patients with acute and chronic conditions.Conclusions: Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a dynamic process and, therefore, it is likely that the prevalence of COVID-19 in the community will wax and wane. This will impact an institution's mitigation needs. Operating procedures should be frequently reassessed and modified as needed. The suggestions provided are those of the authors and do not represent official positions of the Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors or the American Thoracic Society.

Dual LABA/LAMA Therapy versus LABA or LAMA Monotherapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Support of the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the optimal first-line therapy for symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-acting ß2-receptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have long been mainstays of treatment, though it is still not clear if dual therapy with LABA/LAMA is superior to monotherapy for symptomatic COPD.Objectives: To clarify the evidence landscape, we conducted a systematic review to answer the following question: in patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, is LABA/LAMA combination therapy more effective and equally safe compared with LABA or LAMA monotherapy?Methods: A search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted by a medical librarian for randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance that compare LABA/LAMA combination therapy to LABA or LAMA monotherapy. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the emerging study evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence.Results: A total of 24 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 45,441). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed reductions in hospital admissions (11% reduction; P < 0.01) and acute exacerbations of COPD (20% reduction; P < 0.002), all in favor of LABA/LAMA dual therapy. Although there is reduced dyspnea (0.10 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001) and improved health-related quality of life (-0.13 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001), both values did not meet a clinical meaningful difference threshold. LABA/LAMA combination therapy showed no difference in treatment-emergent adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.99; P = 0.34) when compared with either LAMA or LABA monotherapy.Conclusions: Based on the reviewed evidence, in patients with symptomatic COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, dual LABA/LAMA therapy is superior to either LABA or LAMA monotherapy based on the reduced risk of exacerbations and hospitalizations.

Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: This document provides clinical recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It represents a collaborative effort on the part of a panel of expert COPD clinicians and researchers along with a team of methodologists under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society.Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses were performed on all relevant studies that addressed the clinical questions and critical patient-centered outcomes agreed upon by the panel of experts. The evidence was appraised, rated, and graded, and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Results: After weighing the quality of evidence and balancing the desirable and undesirable effects, the guideline panel made the following recommendations: 1) a strong recommendation for the use of long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination therapy over LABA or LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance; 2) a conditional recommendation for the use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA/LAMA over dual therapy with LABA/LAMA in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance who have experienced one or more exacerbations in the past year; 3) a conditional recommendation for ICS withdrawal for patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) if the patient has had no exacerbations in the past year; 4) no recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD and blood eosinophilia, except for those patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year requiring antibiotics or oral steroids or hospitalization, for whom ICS is conditionally recommended as an additive therapy; 5) a conditional recommendation against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids in patients with COPD and a history of severe and frequent exacerbations; and 6) a conditional recommendation for opioid-based therapy in patients with COPD who experience advanced refractory dyspnea despite otherwise optimal therapy.Conclusions: The task force made recommendations regarding the pharmacologic treatment of COPD based on currently available evidence. Additional research in populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials is needed, including studies in patients with COPD 80 years of age and older, those with multiple chronic health conditions, and those with a codiagnosis of COPD and asthma.