Rehabilitation in chronic respiratory diseases: Live your life to the max

Validation of the CaReQoL asthma: a patient reported outcome measure for monitoring the perceived effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in adult patients with severe refractory asthma

BACKGROUND

The CaReQoL Asthma assesses the care-related quality of life outcomes of pulmonary rehabilitation retrospectively in patients with severe asthma. The questionnaire comprises five domains (physical functioning; social functioning; coping with asthma; knowledge about asthma; medication).

AIM

To investigate construct and criterion validity of the CaReQoL Asthma, as well as its responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC), in comparison with other health measures (AQLQ, ACQ and FEV₁).

METHODS

Eighty three adults with severe refractory asthma filled out the CaReQoL Asthma at 6 and 12 months after a 12-week personalized multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation program in a tertiary asthma centre, either in Switzerland or The Netherlands. Construct validity and responsiveness were assessed by testing pre-defined hypotheses about associations with changes in AQLQ, ACQ and FEV₁ scores. Criterion validity and MIC was assessed using Global Perceived Effect (GPE). Factor analyses, Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's correlations, paired t-tests and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were performed.

RESULTS

Cronbach's alphas of the questionnaire domains ranged from 0.82 to 0.95. Good construct validity and responsiveness were found; 84% of the assessed correlations confirm pre-defined hypotheses and reflect both weak and moderate to strong correlations. Good criterion validity was also identified, with CaReQol scores discriminating better than other health measures between levels of GPE at 6 months post-rehabilitation. The MIC for the total score was estimated at 0.84.

CONCLUSION

These study results suggest that the CaReQoL Asthma is a valid and responsive instrument and shows to be a comprehensive and tailored questionnaire for evaluating and monitoring outcomes of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with severe refractory asthma. In order to further substantiate the reliability and validity of the CaReQoL Asthma, as well as to monitor outcomes of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with severe asthma, it is recommended to use the CaReQoL Asthma in addition to other disease specific instruments.

Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation at high-altitude compared to sea-level in adults with severe refractory asthma

BACKGROUND

Beneficial effects of pulmonary rehabilitation at high-altitude (HAPR) in patients with severe refractory asthma have been reported earlier, but evidence for the effectiveness is limited.

AIM

To investigate the effectiveness of high-altitude pulmonary rehabilitation to comparable treatment at sea-level (LAPR) on patient outcome parameters.

METHODS

Adults with severe refractory asthma living in The Netherlands were included. Treatment consisted of a 12-week personalized multidisciplinary rehabilitation program either at high-altitude (Davos Switzerland) (n = 93) or in a tertiary lung center at sea-level in The Netherlands (n = 45). At baseline, after treatment, and during 12 months follow-up asthma related quality of life (AQLQ), asthma control (ACQ), pulmonary function and OCS-dose were assessed. Patients could not be randomized resulting in different asthma populations. Groups were compared using linear regression analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline values, in addition to age, atopy, smoking history, BMI and gender.

RESULTS

After treatment, and at 12 months follow-up, improved AQLQ(0.92,p < 0.001 and 0.82,p = 0.001, respectively), ACQ(-0.87,p < 0.001 and -0.69,p = 0.008, respectively) and lower maintenance OCS dose (Unadjusted linear regression analysis-5.29 mg, p = 0.003 and Crude Odds Ratio-1.67, p = 0.003, respectively) were observed in the HAPR-group compared to the LAPR group. Patients receiving HAPR also had less asthma exacerbations (≥1 exacerbation: 20% vs 60%,p < 0.001) and showed improvement in lung function (%predFEV₁ 3.4%,p = 0.014) compared to the LAPR group, but at 12 months no differences between groups were observed.

CONCLUSION

HAPR resulted in a larger improvement in patient outcome parameters compared to LAPR, on the long run the improvement in patient reported symptoms and lower maintenance OCS-dose persists. Underlying factors that explain this observed effect need to be investigated.