Physical activity, physical capacity and sedentary behavior among asthma patients.

BACKGROUND: Although exercise and daily physical activity (PA) have long been known to benefit patients with chronic disorders, knowledge is limited regarding asthma. OBJECTIVE: In a Danish setting, our aim was to measure physical activity, sedentary behavior, and physical capacity among patients with asthma. We hypothesized that people with severe asthma would be less active and more sedentary than their mild-moderate counterparts. METHODS: Adults with asthma were recruited through respiratory outpatient clinics and subsequently examined twice, 4 weeks apart. At each visit, participants underwent a series of lung function tests, questionnaires, and maximum oxygen uptake testing (VO2max). Between the visits, participants wore an accelerometer continuously for 4 weeks, measuring sedentary time and daily steps. Sixty patients, 27 with mild-moderate asthma (GINA 1-3) and 33 with severe asthma (GINA 4-5), completed both visits and had valid accelerometer measurements. RESULTS: No significant differences between the two groups were found in sedentary time, number of steps or VO2max.   VO2max was significantly correlated with FeNO (r = -0.30, p < 0.05), Short Form-12 Mental Health (r = 0.37, p < 0.05), Asthma Control Questionnaire (r = -0.35, p < 0.05), and Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (r = 0.36, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: No differences were observed between patients with mild-moderate and severe asthma regarding sedentary behavior, daily steps or level of cardiopulmonary fitness. Furthermore, patients with the highest VO2max had the higher quality of life scores. Abbreviations: VO2max: Maximal Oxygen Uptake; CPET: Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing; BMI: Body Mass Index; FEV1: Forced Expired Volume in the First Second; FVC: Forced Vital Capacity; PEF: Peak Expiratory Flow; EIB: Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction; COPD: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; ACQ: Asthma Control Questionnaire; Mini-AQLQ: Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; SF-12: Short Form 12 Health Survey; SNOT-22: Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22; GINA: The Global Initiative for Asthma; CRP: C-reactive Protein; Hgb:Hemoglobin count; EOS: Eosinophil count; EVH: Eucapnic Voluntary Hyperventilation; FeNO: Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide; PA: Physical Activity ERS: European Respiratory Society; ATS: American Thoracic Society; CRS: Chronic Rhinosinusitis; AHR: Airway Hyperresponsiveness.

The impact of dysfunctional breathing on the level of asthma control in difficult asthma.

BACKGROUND: Difficult asthma is defined as asthma requiring high dose treatment. However, systematic assessment is required to differentiate severe asthma from difficult-to-treat asthma. Dysfunctional breathing (DB) is a common comorbidity in difficult asthma, which may contribute to symptoms, but how it affects commonly used measures of symptom control is unclear. METHODS: All adult asthma patients seen in four respiratory clinics over one year were screened prospectively, and patients with possible severe asthma according to ERS/ATS criteria ('Difficult asthma': high-dose inhaled corticosteroids/oral corticosteroids), underwent systematic assessment. Symptoms of DB were assessed utilizing a symptom based subjective tool, Nijmegen questionnaire (NQ), and objective signs of DB with the Breathing Pattern Assessment Tool (BPAT). Asthma control and quality of life were evaluated with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and the mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were included. Among these, 29.9% (35/117) had DB according to the NQ. Patients with DB had a poorer asthma control (ACQ: Mean (SD) 2.86 ± 1.05 vs. 1.46 ± 0.93) and lower quality of life (AQLQ score: Mean (SD) 4.2 ± 1.04 vs. 5.49 ± 0.85) compared to patients without DB. Similarly, patients with objective signs of DB according to the BPAT score had worse asthma control: BPAT >4 vs < 4: (ACQ: Mean (SD) 3.15 ± 0.93 vs 2.03 ± 1.15). CONCLUSION: DB is common among patients with difficult asthma, and is associated with significantly poorer asthma control and lower quality of life. Assessment and treatment of DB is an important part of the management of difficult asthma.

Differentiation of adult severe asthma from difficult-to-treat asthma - Outcomes of a systematic assessment protocol.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend a differentiation of difficult-to-treat asthma from severe asthma. However, this might be complex and to which extent this distinction is achievable in clinical practice remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate to which degree a systematic evaluation protocol enables a differentiation between severe versus difficult-to-treat asthma in patients in specialist care on high intensity asthma treatment, i.e. potentially severe asthma. METHODS: All adult asthma patients seen in four respiratory clinics over one year were screened prospectively for asthma severity. Patients with difficult-to-control asthma according to ERS/ATS criteria (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids/oral corticosteroids) underwent systematic assessment to differentiate severe asthma patients from those with other causes of poor asthma control: objective confirmation of the asthma diagnosis as well as assessment of treatment barriers and comorbidities. RESULTS: Overall, 1034 asthma patients were screened, of whom 175 (16.9%) had difficult-to-control asthma. 117 of these accepted inclusion, and completed systematic assessment. Asthma diagnosis was objectively confirmed in 88%. Sub-optimal adherence (42.5%), inhaler errors (31.5%) and unmanaged comorbidities (66.7%) were common. After primary assessment, 12% (14/117) fulfilled strict criteria for severe asthma. Moreover, 56% (66/117) were instantly classified as difficult-to-treat asthma due to poor adherence/inhaler technique. Finally, an ´overlap' group of 32% (37/117) were identified with patients being adherent and displaying correct inhaler technique, but had unmanaged comorbidities -potentially fitting into both the difficult-to-treat and severe group. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of patients with difficult-to-control asthma were found to have severe asthma after primary systematic assessment. Nevertheless, strict categorisation of severe vs. difficult-to-treat asthma seems to pose a challenge.

A randomised study of the effects of supplemental exercise sessions after a 7-week chronic obstructive pulmonary disease rehabilitation program.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that the effects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) rehabilitation programs tend to attenuate with time. We aimed to investigate the effects of supplemental exercise sessions following an initial 7-week COPD rehabilitation program with regard to exercise capacity and disease-specific quality of life (QoL). METHODS: We performed a 7-week COPD rehabilitation program in 140 COPD patients. Patients (n = 118) who completed the initial program were randomised for additional six supervised supplemental exercise sessions or three follow-up examinations without exercise. Both groups were followed for 12 months. Primary end-points were QoL as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score and exercise capacity as measured by the endurance shuttle walking time (ESWT). RESULTS: A marked increase in ESWT (from 193 to 921 s) and a moderate decrease in total SGRQ score (2.5 points) was obtained during the initial 7 weeks rehabilitation program. The ESWT declined moderately and was 645 s at week 52 in both the intervention and control group. Unexpectedly, QoL increased slightly in the control group, while it decreased slightly in the intervention group. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the observed changes in QoL or ESWT at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, a program of six supplemental exercise sessions following the initial 7-week COPD rehabilitation program did not have any effect on ESWT or QoL during a 1-year follow-up.

Results of an outpatient multidisciplinary COPD rehabilitation programme obtained in two settings: primary and secondary health care.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is limited experience with implementation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) rehabilitation in primary care settings. We aimed to evaluate the implementation of a COPD rehabilitation programme in a primary care setting and compare the effects with those obtained in a secondary health-care setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The same outpatient multidisciplinary 7-week rehabilitation programme was implemented in a primary (day care nursery) and a secondary (hospital) health-care setting. Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) and endurance shuttle walking time (ESWT) was assessed at the start and end of the programme. Additionally, QoL was assessed again at a 3-months follow-up. RESULTS: No serious problems or adverse events were encountered during the training/rehabilitation sessions. A total of 48 patients (81.3%) and 75 patients (84.2%) completed the 7-week rehabilitation programme in the primary and secondary settings, respectively. Within both centres, we found statistically significant improvements of ESWT and total St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score. The improvement of ESWT was significantly greater in the secondary care setting than in the primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: we found that it was possible to implement a COPD rehabilitation programme in a Danish primary care setting. In this non-randomised study, improvements of QoL and ESWT obtained in the primary care setting were reasonably similar to those obtained in the secondary care setting.