Supervised pulmonary rehabilitation using minimal or specialist exercise equipment in COPD: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many trials supporting the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) have used specialist exercise equipment, such as treadmills and cycle ergometers. However, access to specialist equipment may not be feasible in some settings. There is growing interest in delivering PR programmes with minimal, low-cost equipment, but uncertainty remains regarding their efficacy compared with programmes using specialist equipment. METHODS: Using propensity score matching, 318 consecutive patients with COPD undergoing supervised PR using minimal equipment (PR-min) were compared 1:1 with a control group of 318 patients with COPD who underwent supervised PR using specialist equipment (PR-gym). A non-inferiority analysis was performed for the primary outcome (incremental shuttle walk (ISW)) and secondary outcomes (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ)-domain and total scores). RESULTS: Similar improvements in ISW and CRQ-domains were observed in PR-min and PR-gym groups (mean difference ISW: 3 m (95% CI -16 to 9); CRQ-total: 0.9 (95% CI -2.7 to 4.5)). The 95% CI between group differences for ISW and CRQ-total did not cross the predefined non-inferiority margins. However, completion rates were lower in PR-min compared with PR-gym (64% vs 73%; p=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD, PR delivered using minimal equipment produces clinically significant benefits in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life that are non-inferior to rehabilitation delivered using specialist equipment. This study provides support for the provision of PR using minimal exercise equipment, particularly in areas where access to specialist exercise equipment is limited.

Anxiety and depression in bronchiectasis: Response to pulmonary rehabilitation and minimal clinically important difference of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

The aims of the study were to evaluate the responsiveness of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) subscale and HADS-Depression (HADS-D) subscale to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with bronchiectasis compared to a matched group of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provide estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of HADS-A and HADS-D in bronchiectasis. Patients with bronchiectasis and at least mild anxiety or depression (HADS-A ≥ 8 or/and HADS-D ≥ 8), as well as a propensity score-matched control group of patients with COPD, underwent an 8-week outpatient PR programme (two supervised sessions per week). Within- and between-group changes were calculated in response to PR. Anchor- and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID. HADS-A and HADS-D improved in response to PR in both patients with bronchiectasis and those with COPD (median (25th, 75th centile)/mean (95% confidence interval) change: HADS-A change: bronchiectasis -2 (-5, 0), COPD -2 (-4, 0); p = 0.43 and HADS-D change: bronchiectasis -2 (-2 to -1), COPD -2 (-3 to -2); p = 0.16). Using 26 estimates, the MCID for HADS-A and HADS-D was -2 points. HADS-A and HADS-D are responsive to PR in patients with bronchiectasis and symptoms of mood disorder, with an MCID estimate of -2 points.

Home versus outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD: a propensity-matched cohort study.

Home-based exercise has been proposed as an equivalent treatment strategy to supervised outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), but it is not known whether its implementation into clinical practice produces similar benefits to those observed in trials. We compared the real-world responses of 154 patients with COPD undergoing home-based exercise with a matched group attending supervised PR. We observed smaller improvements in exercise capacity with home-based exercise compared with PR, but similar improvements in quality of life. We propose that supervised PR remains the standard of care, with home-based exercise a less effective alternative for those unable to attend PR.

King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire: responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference.

Health status is increasingly used in clinical practice to quantify symptom burden and as a clinical trial end-point in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). The King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) questionnaire is a brief, validated 15-item, disease-specific, health-related quality of life questionnaire that is increasingly used in clinical trials, but little data exist regarding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Using pulmonary rehabilitation as a model, we aimed to determine the responsiveness of KBILD and provide estimates of the MCID.KBILD scores, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores, Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea score and incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) distance were measured in 209 patients with ILD (105 with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF)) before and after an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme. Changes with intervention and Cohen's effect size were calculated. Anchor-based (linear regression and receiver operating characteristic plots) or distribution-based approaches (0.5 sd and standard error of measurement) were used to estimate the MCID of KBILD domain and total scores.KBILD, CRQ, MRC Dyspnoea and ISWT improved with intervention, and the effect sizes of KBILD domain and total scores ranged from 0.28 to 0.38. Using anchor-based estimates, the MCID estimates for KBILD-Psychological, KBILD-Breathlessness and activities, and KBILD-Total were 5.4, 4.4 and 3.9 points, respectively. Using distribution-based methods, the MCID estimate for KBILD-Chest symptoms was 9.8 points. The MCID estimates for KBILD in IPF patients were similar.In patients with ILD and IPF, KBILD is responsive to intervention with an estimated MCID of 3.9 points for the total score.

Community nurse-led initiation of antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C in people who inject drugs does not increase uptake of or adherence to treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C is common in people who inject drugs (PWID) and this population serves as a reservoir for infection. Treatment levels are low among this group, ranging from 1 to 19%. We explored whether a nurse-initiated community treatment model increased uptake of and adherence to interferon-based therapies. METHODS: This was a cluster randomized trial of nurse-initiated versus physician-initiated antiviral therapy with pegylated interferon and ribavirin for hepatitis C virus in community clinics (trial registration: ISRCTN07774040). RESULTS: The proportion of participants initiating treatment during follow-up was 10% with nurse-initiated (6/62) and 9% with physician-initiated (6/76) therapy. Adherence was similar in both groups, with only one patient in each arm not adhering to therapy. There were no serious adverse events, but interferon-related side effects were common. Drug and alcohol use did not change during therapy. CONCLUSION: Despite easy access to antiviral therapy, uptake of treatment was poor, with no significant difference between the groups. Nurse-led initiation of interferon-based antiviral therapy in PWID did not lead to increased uptake of, response to or adherence with treatment. Further service improvement is unlikely to increase the proportion of PWID undergoing antiviral therapy for hepatitis C virus and early adoption of interferon-free regimens may increase the proportion initiating and completing treatment.