Cognitive behavioural therapy combined with physical activity behavioural modification strategies during pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD.

Introduction: Patients with COPD who exhibit elevated levels of anxiety and/or depression are typically less able to improve symptoms and physical activity levels following a programme of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The objective of the present study was to provide proof of concept that offering an intervention comprising cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) alongside physical activity behavioural modification strategies (BPA) during PR is more effective in improving physical activity outcomes compared to PR and CBT alone. Methods: 32 patients with COPD (mean±sd forced expiratory volume in 1 s 42±14% predicted) were assigned 1:1 to receive PR+CBT+BPA or PR+CBT. BPA comprised motivational interviews, step-count monitoring, feedback using a pedometer and goal setting. Assessments included accelerometer-derived steps per day, movement intensity, 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores. Results: The magnitude of improvement across physical activity outcomes was greater for the PR+CBT+BPA compared to the PR+CBT intervention (by 829 steps per day (p=0.029) and by 80±39 vector magnitude units (p=0.042), respectively). Compared to PR and CBT alone, the PR+CBT+BPA intervention induced greater clinically meaningful improvements in HADS anxiety scores (by -2 units, 95% CI -4-1 units) and 6MWD (by 33±20 m). Conclusions: Providing anxious and/or depressed patients with COPD with a combined intervention of CBT and BPA during PR presents more favourable improvements in physical activity outcome measures compared to CBT alone during PR.

The effect of COVID rehabilitation for ongoing symptoms Post HOSPitalisation with COVID-19 (PHOSP-R): protocol for a randomised parallel group controlled trial on behalf of the PHOSP consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Many adults hospitalised with COVID-19 have persistent symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness and brain fog that limit day-to-day activities. These symptoms can last over 2 years. Whilst there is limited controlled studies on interventions that can support those with ongoing symptoms, there has been some promise in rehabilitation interventions in improving function and symptoms either using face-to-face or digital methods, but evidence remains limited and these studies often lack a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a nested single-blind, parallel group, randomised control trial with embedded qualitative evaluation comparing rehabilitation (face-to-face or digital) to usual care and conducted within the PHOSP-COVID study. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions on exercise capacity, quality of life and symptoms such as breathlessness and fatigue. The primary outcome is the Incremental Shuttle Walking Test following the eight week intervention phase. Secondary outcomes include measures of function, strength and subjective assessment of symptoms. Blood inflammatory markers and muscle biopsies are an exploratory outcome. The interventions last eight weeks and combine symptom-titrated exercise therapy, symptom management and education delivered either in a face-to-face setting or through a digital platform ( www.yourcovidrecovery.nhs.uk ). The proposed sample size is 159 participants, and data will be intention-to-treat analyses comparing rehabilitation (face-to-face or digital) to usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was gained as part of the PHOSP-COVID study by Yorkshire and the Humber Leeds West Research NHS Ethics Committee, and the study was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN trial registry (ISRCTN13293865). Results will be disseminated to stakeholders, including patients and members of the public, and published in appropriate journals. Strengths and limitations of this study • This protocol utilises two interventions to support those with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 • This is a two-centre parallel-group randomised controlled trial • The protocol has been supported by patient and public involvement groups who identified treatments of symptoms and activity limitation as a top priority.

Greater exercise tolerance in COPD during acute intermittent compared to continuous shuttle walking protocols: A proof-of-concept study.

Objectives: Ground-based walking is a simple training modality which would suit pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) settings with limited access to specialist equipment. Patients with COPD are, however, unable to walk uninterruptedly at a relatively fast walking pace to optimise training benefits. We compared an intermittent (IntSW) to a continuous (CSW) shuttle walking protocol.Methods: In 14 COPD patients (mean ± SD. FEV1: 45 ± 21% predicted) we measured walking distance, cardiac output (CO), arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2), and symptoms during (a) an IntSW protocol, consisting of 1-min walking alternating with 1-min rest, and (b) a CSW protocol, both sustained at 85% of predicted VO2 peak to the limit of tolerance (Tlim).Results: Median (IQR) distance was greater (p = 0.001) during the IntSW protocol (735 (375-1107) m) than the CSW protocol (190 (117-360) m). At iso-distance (distance at Tlim during CSW) the IntSW compared to the CSW protocol was associated with lower CO (8.6 ± 2.6 vs 10.3 ± 3.7 L/min; p = 0.013), greater SpO2 (92 ± 6% versus 90 ± 7%; p = 0.002), and lower symptoms of dyspnoea (2.8 ± 1.3 vs 4.9 ± 1.4; p = 0.001) and leg discomfort (2.3 ± 1.7 vs 4.2 ± 2.2; p = 0.001). At Tlim symptoms of dyspnoea and leg discomfort did not differ between the IntSW (4.4 ± 1.9 and 3.6 ± 2.1, respectively) and the CSW protocol.Conclusions: The IntSW protocol may provide important clinical benefits during exercise training in the PR settings because it allows greater work outputs compared to the CSW.

Behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation improve COPD patients' experiences of physical activity.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The Clinical PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instrument, combines a questionnaire assessing the domains of amount and difficulty of physical activity (PA) with activity monitor data (steps/day and vector magnitude units) to assess patients' experiences of PA. The C-PPAC instrument is responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and to changes in clinically relevant variables. We compared the effect of PA behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to PR alone on the C-PPAC scores in COPD patients with low baseline PA levels. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, 48 patients (means ± SD: FEV1: 50 ± 19%, baseline steps/day: 3450 ± 2342) were assigned 1:1 to receive PR alone, twice weekly for 8 weeks, or PA behavioural modification interventions (comprising motivational interviews, monitoring and feedback using a pedometer and goal setting) alongside PR (PR + PA). The C-PPAC instrument was used to assess PA experience, including a perspective of the amount and difficulty of PA. RESULTS: There were clinically important improvements in favour of the PR + PA interventions compared to PR alone in: 1) the C-PPAC total score (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [4 to 12] points, p = 0.001), the difficulty (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [3 to 13] points, p = 0.002) and the amount (mean [95% CI] difference 8 [3 to 16] points, p = 0.005) domains and 2) the CAT score (mean [95% CI] difference: -2.1 [-3.8 to -0.3] points, p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: PA behavioural modification interventions alongside PR improve the experiences of PA in patients with advanced COPD and low baseline PA levels. (NCT03749655).

Impact of COVID-19 shielding on physical activity and quality of life in patients with COPD.

In response to #COVID19, healthcare professionals should scale up virtual consultations for assessing core patient-reported outcomes and providing home-based rehabilitation programmes #COPD https://bit.ly/30gQEpG.