Deriving personalised physical activity intensity thresholds by merging accelerometry with field-based walking tests: Implications for pulmonary rehabilitation.

During pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), patients receive individually tailored walking exercise training. The personalised nature of exercise prescription is a fundamental component of PR. Despite this, the measurement of physical activity (PA) has been limited to a 'one size fits all' approach and can be challenging to translate into clinically meaningful or real-world units, such as cadence. This discrepancy may partly explain the inconsistent evidence for the impact of PR on PA. It may also provide an opportunity to standardise PA assessment in the context of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) and PR, where field-based walking tests are routine measures. This technical note provides an example of how to develop personalised PA intensity thresholds, calibrated against an individual's performance on the Incremental Shuttle Walking Test (ISWT; maximal) and Endurance Shuttle Walk Test (ESWT; sub-maximal). These are externally paced tests, with each level (speed) of the tests denoting a specific speed (intensity); ranging 1.8 km/h (ISWT Level 1) to 8.5 km/h (ISWT Level 12). From the ESWT, it becomes possible to evaluate adherence to each individual's walking exercise prescription. Future research should explore this approach and its responsiveness to PR. It may be possible to extend this methodology with the inclusion of physiological parameters (e.g., heart rate, calorimetry, and oxygen consumption) to derive relative intensity markers (e.g. moderate-to-vigorous), accounting for individual differences in exercise capacity, under the same paradigm as PR exercise prescription.

Adherence to walking exercise prescription during pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with a commercial activity monitor: a feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Regular exercise is important in the management of COPD. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) facilitates a more physically active lifestyle through exercise participation, ideally without compromising non-exercise physical activity (PA). During PR patients are advised to perform exercise defined by duration and intensity. The extent to which PR attendees participate in unsupervised exercise bouts and their adherence to the exercise prescription provided during PR is unclear. Commercially available devices have the potential to support patients to exercise at their individually prescribed intensity. Study aims were to (1) assess how adherent patients are to their prescribed walking intensity; (2) examine the pattern of overall PA and walking exercise during the course of PR; (3) determine the feasibility of prescribing exercise to PR attendees using an activity monitor; and (4) explore the relationship between exercise and non-exercise PA with routine PR outcome measures. METHODS: 19 patients wore an activity monitor during routine walking tests and 6 weeks of PR, recording in a diary when they exercised. Exercise intensity (cadence) was prescribed from the Endurance Shuttle Walk Test. Patients completed questionnaires, walking tests and a lower limb strength test before and after PR. Repeated ANOVA compared changes in outcomes between weeks 1-6. RESULTS: Patients wore the monitor every day during PR (median 42 days). Exercise steps increased by 56% (Δ332 [95% CI 54-611] steps/day, p = 0.009) between weeks 1 and 6, with no significant change in non-exercise steps (Δ79 [95% CI - 22 to - 179] steps/day, p = 0.13). Patients reported exercising on 70% of days. Adherence to prescribed cadence was achieved 55% of time spent exercising, and did not change across the 6 weeks (p = 0.907). Change in total daily steps was associated with improved dyspnea (p = 0.027), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) Dyspnea domain (p = 0.019), CRQ Emotional Functioning domain (p = 0.001) and CRQ Mastery domain scores (p = 0.001) but not with exercise capacity or lower limb muscle strength. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in exercise participation, not at the expense of non-exercise PA, throughout a PR course was observed in attendees provided with a commercially available activity monitor. Wearable technology may be able to support effective remote walking exercise prescription and participation during PR. Trial registration (retrospectively registered): http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15892972 .

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: official diagnosis and treatment guidelines of the Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society; a novel phenotypic approach to COPD with patient-oriented care.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a global concern. Currently, several sets of guidelines, statements and strategies to managing COPD exist around the world. METHODS: The Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society (CPPS) has commissioned an Expert group to draft recommended guidelines for the management of stable COPD. Subsequent revisions were further discussed at the National Consensus Conference (NCC). Reviewers' comments contributed to the establishment of the document's final version. DIAGNOSIS: The hallmark of the novel approach to COPD is the integrated evaluation of the patient's lung functions, symptoms, exacerbations and identifications of clinical phenotype(s). The CPPS defines 6 clinically relevant phenotypes: frequent exacerbator, COPD-asthma overlap, COPD-bronchiectasis overlap, emphysematic phenotype, bronchitic phenotype and pulmonary cachexia phenotype. TREATMENT: Treatment recommendations can be divided into four steps. 1(st) step = Risk exposure elimination: reduction of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), decrease of home and occupational exposure risks. 2(nd) step = Standard treatment: inhaled bronchodilators, regular physical activity, pulmonary rehabilitation, education, inhalation training, comorbidity treatment, vaccination. 3(rd) step = Phenotype-specific therapy: PDE4i, ICS+LABA, LVRS, BVR, AAT augmentation, physiotherapy, mucolytic, ABT. 4(th) step = Care for respiratory insufficiency and terminal COPD: LTOT, lung transplantation, high intensity-NIV and palliative care. CONCLUSION: Optimal treatment of COPD patients requires an individualised, multidisciplinary approach to the patient's symptoms, clinical phenotypes, needs and wishes. The new Czech COPD guideline reflects and covers these requirements.