An evaluation of three elements of pulmonary rehabilitation

Supported self-management for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an evidence synthesis and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Self-management (SM) support for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is variable in its coverage, content, method and timing of delivery. There is insufficient evidence for which SM interventions are the most effective and cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake (1) a systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of SM interventions commencing within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation for COPD (review 1); (2) a systematic review of the qualitative evidence about patient satisfaction, acceptance and barriers to SM interventions (review 2); (3) a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of SM support interventions within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation of COPD (review 3); (4) a cost-effectiveness analysis and economic model of post-exacerbation SM support compared with usual care (UC) (economic model); and (5) a wider systematic review of the evidence of the effectiveness of SM support, including interventions (such as pulmonary rehabilitation) in which there are significant components of SM, to identify which components are the most important in reducing exacerbations, hospital admissions/readmissions and improving quality of life (review 4).

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2012: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Science Citation Index [Institute of Scientific Information (ISI)]. Subject-specific databases were also searched: PEDro physiotherapy evidence database, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials. Ongoing studies were sourced through the metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Specialist abstract and conference proceedings were sourced through ISI's Conference Proceedings Citation Index and British Library's Electronic Table of Contents (Zetoc). Hand-searching through European Respiratory Society, the American Thoracic Society and British Thoracic Society conference proceedings from 2010 to 2012 was also undertaken, and selected websites were also examined. Title, abstracts and full texts of potentially relevant studies were scanned by two independent reviewers. Primary studies were included if ≈90% of the population had COPD, the majority were of at least moderate severity and reported on any intervention that included a SM component or package. Accepted study designs and outcomes differed between the reviews. Risk of bias for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine studies where appropriate. A Markov model, taking a 30-year time horizon, compared a SM intervention immediately following a hospital admission for an acute exacerbation with UC. Incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years were calculated, with sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

From 13,355 abstracts, 10 RCTs were included for review 1, one study each for reviews 2 and 3, and 174 RCTs for review 4. Available studies were heterogeneous and many were of poor quality. Meta-analysis identified no evidence of benefit of post-discharge SM support on admissions [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.17], mortality (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54) and most other health outcomes. A modest improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was identified but this was possibly biased due to high loss to follow-up. The economic model was speculative due to uncertainty in impact on readmissions. Compared with UC, post-discharge SM support (delivered within 6 weeks of discharge) was more costly and resulted in better outcomes (£683 cost difference and 0.0831 QALY gain). Studies assessing the effect of individual components were few but only exercise significantly improved HRQoL (3-month St George's Respiratory Questionnaire 4.87, 95% CI 3.96 to 5.79). Multicomponent interventions produced an improved HRQoL compared with UC (mean difference 6.50, 95% CI 3.62 to 9.39, at 3 months). Results were consistent with a potential reduction in admissions. Interventions with more enhanced care from health-care professionals improved HRQoL and reduced admissions at 1-year follow-up. Interventions that included supervised or unsupervised structured exercise resulted in significant and clinically important improvements in HRQoL up to 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

This review was based on a comprehensive search strategy that should have identified most of the relevant studies. The main limitations result from the heterogeneity of studies available and widespread problems with their design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

There was little evidence of benefit of providing SM support to patients shortly after discharge from hospital, although effects observed were consistent with possible improvement in HRQoL and reduction in hospital admissions. It was not easy to tease out the most effective components of SM support packages, although interventions containing exercise seemed the most effective. Future work should include qualitative studies to explore barriers and facilitators to SM post exacerbation and novel approaches to affect behaviour change, tailored to the individual and their circumstances. Any new trials should be properly designed and conducted, with special attention to reducing loss to follow-up. Individual participant data meta-analysis may help to identify the most effective components of SM interventions.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001588.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care on health-related quality of life and functional and maximal exercise capacity in persons with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. Searches were current as of March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD in which health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and/or functional (FEC) or maximal (MEC) exercise capacity were measured. We defined 'pulmonary rehabilitation' as exercise training for at least four weeks with or without education and/or psychological support. We defined 'usual care' as conventional care in which the control group was not given education or any form of additional intervention. We considered participants in the following situations to be in receipt of usual care: only verbal advice was given without additional education; and medication was altered or optimised to what was considered best practice at the start of the trial for all participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model. We requested missing data from the authors of the primary study. We used standard methods as recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Along with the 31 RCTs included in the previous version (2006), we included 34 additional RCTs in this update, resulting in a total of 65 RCTs involving 3822 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis.We noted no significant demographic differences at baseline between members of the intervention group and those who received usual care. For the pulmonary rehabilitation group, the mean forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) was 39.2% predicted, and for the usual care group 36.4%; mean age was 62.4 years and 62.5 years, respectively. The gender mix in both groups was around two males for each female. A total of 41 of the pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were hospital based (inpatient or outpatient), 23 were community based (at community centres or in individual homes) and one study had both a hospital component and a community component. Most programmes were of 12 weeks' or eight weeks' duration with an overall range of four weeks to 52 weeks.The nature of the intervention made it impossible for investigators to blind participants or those delivering the programme. In addition, it was unclear from most early studies whether allocation concealment was undertaken; along with the high attrition rates reported by several studies, this impacted the overall risk of bias.We found statistically significant improvement for all included outcomes. In four important domains of quality of life (QoL) (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores for dyspnoea, fatigue, emotional function and mastery), the effect was larger than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5 units (dyspnoea: MD 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.03; N = 1283; studies = 19; moderate-quality evidence; fatigue: MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; N = 1291; studies = 19; low-quality evidence; emotional function: MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78; N = 1291; studies = 19; mastery: MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; N = 1212; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Statistically significant improvements were noted in all domains of the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and improvement in total score was better than 4 units (MD -6.89, 95% CI -9.26 to -4.52; N = 1146; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis using the trials at lower risk of bias yielded a similar estimate of the treatment effect (MD -5.15, 95% CI -7.95 to -2.36; N = 572; studies = 7).Both functional exercise and maximal exercise showed statistically significant improvement. Researchers reported an increase in maximal exercise capacity (mean Wmax (W)) in participants allocated to pulmonary rehabilitation compared with usual care (MD 6.77, 95% CI 1.89 to 11.65; N = 779; studies = 16). The common effect size exceeded the MCID (4 watts) proposed by Puhan 2011(b). In relation to functional exercise capacity, the six-minute walk distance mean treatment effect was greater than the threshold of clinical significance (MD 43.93, 95% CI 32.64 to 55.21; participants = 1879; studies = 38).The subgroup analysis, which compared hospital-based programmes versus community-based programmes, provided evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups for all domains of the CRQ, with higher mean values, on average, in the hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation group than in the community-based group. The SGRQ did not reveal this difference. Subgroup analysis performed to look at the complexity of the pulmonary rehabilitation programme provided no evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups that received exercise only and those that received exercise combined with more complex interventions. However, both subgroup analyses could be confounded and should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pulmonary rehabilitation relieves dyspnoea and fatigue, improves emotional function and enhances the sense of control that individuals have over their condition. These improvements are moderately large and clinically significant. Rehabilitation serves as an important component of the management of COPD and is beneficial in improving health-related quality of life and exercise capacity. It is our opinion that additional RCTs comparing pulmonary rehabilitation and conventional care in COPD are not warranted. Future research studies should focus on identifying which components of pulmonary rehabilitation are essential, its ideal length and location, the degree of supervision and intensity of training required and how long treatment effects persist. This endeavour is important in the light of the new subgroup analysis, which showed a difference in treatment effect on the CRQ between hospital-based and community-based programmes but no difference between exercise only and more complex pulmonary rehabilitation programmes.

Airway clearance techniques for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Cough and sputum production are common in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Airway clearance techniques (ACTs) aim to remove sputum from the lungs, however evidence of their efficacy during acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) or stable disease is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of ACTs for individuals with AECOPD and stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials from inception to October 2011, and PEDro in October 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised parallel trials and randomised cross-over trials which compared an ACT to no treatment, cough or sham ACT in participants with investigator-defined COPD, emphysema or chronic bronchitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. We analysed data from studies of AECOPD separately from stable COPD, and classified the effects of ACTs as 'immediate' (less than 24 hours), 'short-term' (24 hours to eight weeks) or 'long-term' (greater than eight weeks). One subgroup analysis compared the effects of ACTs that use positive expiratory pressure (PEP) to those that do not.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies on 907 participants were included in the review. Study sample size was generally small (range 5 to 96 people) and overall quality was generally poor due to inadequate blinding and allocation procedures. Meta-analyses were limited by heterogeneity of outcome measurement and inadequate reporting of data.In people experiencing AECOPD, ACT use was associated with small but significant short-term reductions in the need for increased ventilatory assistance (odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.85; data from four studies on 171 people), the duration of ventilatory assistance (mean difference (MD) -2.05 days, 95% CI -2.60 to -1.51; mean duration for control groups seven days; data from two studies on 54 people) and hospital length of stay (MD -0.75 days, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.11; mean duration for control groups nine days; one study on 35 people). Data from a limited number of studies revealed no significant long-term benefits of ACTs on the number of exacerbations or hospitalisations, nor any short-term beneficial effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -2.30, 95% CI -11.80 to 7.20; one study on 59 people).In people with stable COPD, data from single studies revealed no significant short-term benefit of ACTs on the number of people with exacerbations (OR 3.21, 95% CI 0.12 to 85.20; one study on 30 people), significant short-term improvements in HRQoL as measured by the SGRQ total score (MD -6.10, 95% CI -8.93 to -3.27; one study on 15 people) and a reduced long-term need for respiratory-related hospitalisation (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; one study on 35 participants).The magnitude of effect of PEP-based ACTs on the need for increased ventilatory assistance and hospital length of stay was greater than for non-PEP ACTs, however we found no statistically significant subgroup differences. There was one report of vomiting during treatment with postural drainage and head-down tilt.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review indicates that airway clearance techniques are safe for individuals with COPD and confer small beneficial effects on some clinical outcomes. Consideration may be given to the use of airway clearance techniques for patients with COPD in both acute and stable disease, however current studies suggest that the benefits achieved may be small.

Inspiratory Muscle Training Compared with Other Rehabilitation Interventions in Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) (alone or combined with exercise and/or pulmonary rehabilitation) compared to other rehabilitation interventions such as: exercise, education, other breathing techniques or exercise and/or pulmonary rehabilitation among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A systematic review of the literature on IMT and COPD was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration protocol. Inclusion criteria for the review included randomized controlled trials, published in English, comparing IMT or combined IMT and exercise/pulmonary rehabilitation with other rehabilitation interventions such as general exercise, education, other breathing techniques or exercise/pulmonary rehabilitation among adults with COPD. 274 articles were retrieved, and 16 met the inclusion criteria. Seven meta-analyses were performed that compared targeted or threshold IMT to exercise (n = 3) or to education (n = 4). Results showed significant improvements in inspiratory muscle strength and endurance, and in the dyspnea scale on a quality of life measure, for participants in the IMT versus education group. In other instances where meta-analyses could not be performed, a qualitative review was performed. IMT results in improved inspiratory muscle strength and endurance compared to education. Further trials are required to investigate the effect of IMT (or combined IMT) compared to other rehabilitation inventions for outcomes such as dyspnea, exercise tolerance, and quality of life.

Inspiratory muscle training compared with other rehabilitation interventions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review update

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) (alone or combined with exercise and/or pulmonary rehabilitation) and compare with other rehabilitation interventions among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, using Cochrane Collaboration protocol. We included randomized controlled trials, published in English, comparing IMT or combined IMT and exercise/pulmonary rehabilitation with other rehabilitation interventions among adults with COPD. Abstracts were reviewed independently by 2 investigators to determine study eligibility up to December 2005. Data were abstracted and methodological quality of included studies was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 156 additional articles were retrieved. Two new studies met the inclusion criteria and were included with 16 studies in the original review. Results highlight updated subgroup analyses comparing (1) IMT versus exercise and (2) combined IMT and exercise versus exercise alone. Fourteen meta-analyses were performed for outcomes of inspiratory muscle strength, exercise tolerance, and quality of life. Results showed significant improvements in maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum exercise tidal volume favoring combined IMT and exercise compared with exercise alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing a combination of IMT plus exercise may lead to significant improvements in inspiratory muscle strength and one outcome of exercise tolerance for individuals with COPD.

Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function attributable to the programs. This review updates that reported in 2001.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of rehabilitation on health-related quality of life (QoL) and exercise capacity in patients with COPD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified additional RCTs from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. Searches were current as of July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs of rehabilitation in patients with COPD in which quality of life (QoL) and/or functional (FEC) or maximal (MEC) exercise capacity were measured. Rehabilitation was defined as exercise training for at least four weeks with or without education and/or psychological support. Control groups received conventional community care without rehabilitation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) using a random-effects model. We requested missing data from the authors of the primary study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included the 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the 2001 Cochrane review. Eight additional RCTs (for a total of 31) met the inclusion criteria. We found statistically significant improvements for all the outcomes. In four important domains of QoL (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire scores for Dyspnea, Fatigue, Emotional function and Mastery), the effect was larger than the minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 units (for example: Dyspnoea score: WMD 1.0 units; 95% confidence interval: 0.8 to 1.3 units; n = 12 trials). Statistically significant improvements were noted in two of the three domains of the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire. For FEC and MEC, the effect was small and slightly below the threshold of clinical significance for the six-minute walking distance (WMD: 48 meters; 95% CI: 32 to 65; n = 16 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation relieves dyspnea and fatigue, improves emotional function and enhances patients' sense of control over their condition. These improvements are moderately large and clinically significant. Rehabilitation forms an important component of the management of COPD.

Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The widespread application pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function attributable to the programs. This review updates that reported by Lacasse et al Lancet 1996; 748:1115-1119.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of rehabilitation on health-related quality of life (QoL) and exercise capacity in patients with COPD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the original meta-analysis were included. Additional RCTs were identified from the Cochrane Airways Group's registry of COPD RCTs using the strategy: [exp, lung diseases, obstructive] and [exp, rehabilitation or exp, exercise therapy] and [research design or longitudinal studies or evaluation study or randomized controlled trial]. Abstracts presented at American Thoracic Society 1980-2000, American College of Chest Physicians 1980-2000 and European Respiratory Society 1987-2000 were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of rehabilitation in patients with COPD in which quality of life (QoL) and/or functional (FEC) or maximal (MEC) exercise capacity were measured. Rehabilitation was defined as exercise training for at least 4 weeks with or without education and/or psychological support. Control groups received conventional community care without rehabilitation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using a random-effects model. Missing data from the primary study reports were requested from the authors.

MAIN RESULTS

23 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Statistically significant improvements were found for all the outcomes. In three important domains of QoL (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire scores for Dyspnea, Fatigue and Mastery), the effect was larger than the minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 units using this instrument. For example Dyspnoea score: WMD 0.98 units, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.74 - 1.22 units; n=9 trials. For FEC and MEC, the effect was small and a little below the threshold of clinical significance for the 6- minute walking distance: WMD 49 m, 95% CI: 26 - 72 m; n=10 trials.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation relieves dyspnea and fatigue and enhances patients' sense of control over their condition. These improvements are moderately large and clinically significant. The average improvement in exercise capacity was modest. Rehabilitation forms an important component of the management of COPD.