Patterns and Predictors of Recovery from Poor Health Status Measured with the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test in Patients with Stable COPD: A Longitudinal Study

Effects of low and high resistance training intensities on clinical outcomes in patients with COPD - a randomized trial

AIM

To compare the effects of two different intensities of combined resistance and aerobic training on physical-functional aspects and perceptual aspects of health status in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

DESIGN

This was a randomized parallel group trial.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients were assessed regarding: symptoms (COPD Assessment Test - CAT), quality of life (Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire - SGRQ); exercise capacity (six-minute walk test and constant-workload resistance test - CWRT); and muscle strength (one-repetition maximum test and isometric muscle strength for knee extensors - Kext and elbow flexors - EFlex). Patients were randomized in two groups to perform a combined training: 1) LL/HR = Low-load/high-repetition resistance training (n = 16; 68 ± 9.3 years; FEV₁ = 50.0 ± 15.7%pred); and 2) HL/LR = High-load/low-repetition resistance training (n = 15; 70 ± 6.5 years; FEV₁ = 46.8 ± 14.5%pred), and underwent 36 sessions.

RESULTS

Symptoms, quality of life and exercise capacity presented significant improvement (p < .05) in both groups. Both intensities of resistance training improved symptoms (∆CAT: LL/HR = -3.9; HL/LR = -2.8) and exercise capacity (∆ tolerance time in CWRT: LL/HR = +450.9s; HL/LR = +583.4s) above minimal clinically important difference value. Nevertheless, improvement in quality of life (∆SGRQ: LL/HR = -3.8; HL/LR = -10) and in isometric muscle strength (∆KExt: LL/HR = +15.8 N; HL/LR = +37.7 N and (∆EFlex: LL/HR = +9.5 N; HL/LR = +29.9 N) was observed only in the HL/LR group, which also presented a larger number of responders considering isometric muscle strength.

CONCLUSION

High-intensity resistance training in a combined training was more effective in ameliorating several aspects of patients with COPD, responding more and better to physical-functional aspects and perceptual aspects of health status.

Intrinsic Capacity as a Determinant of Physical Resilience in Older Adults

The traditional disease-oriented model of healthcare is inadequate to address the needs of the older population. Greater attention should be given to strategies that promote healthy aging. Recently proposed constructs of intrinsic capacity (IC) and physical resilience (PR) hold great potential to reshape geriatric medicine and aging research. These constructs accentuate the positive health attributes of older people in contrast to the popular frailty construct that is centered on functional deficits. IC was introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a composite of all the physical and mental capacities. WHO has emphasized enhancement of IC throughout the life course so as to maintain functional ability in old age. PR, recently highlighted by the National Institute on Aging, is the ability to successfully cope with stressors. High levels of resilience can result in desirable clinical and functional outcomes after stressors. Therefore, it is important to understand the underlying physiology of PR and the risk factors contributing to diminished PR. The main goal of this article is to explore the potential relationship between IC and PR. Based on a classical theory of aging, we postulate that IC is a determinant of PR and is also a high-level integrative measure of physiologic reserve which is the fundamental factor underlying one's ability to withstand stressors. A major implication of our postulates is that even though IC is only one of the many determinants of PR, it could serve as an important intervenable target for enhancing resilience in older adults.

Smoking status affects clinical characteristics and disease course of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A prospectively observational study

Existing studies primarily explored chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in smokers, whereas the clinical characteristics and the disease course of passive or nonsmokers have been rarely described. In the present study, patients hospitalized and diagnosed as acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) were recruited and followed up until being discharged. Clinical and laboratory indicators were ascertained and delved into. A total of 100 patients were covered, namely, 52 active smokers, 34 passive smokers, and 14 nonsmokers. As revealed from the results here, passive or nonsmokers developed less severe dyspnea (patients with modified Medical Research Council scale (mMRC) <2, 0.0% vs. 8.8% vs. 14.3%, p < 0.05, active, passive, and nonsmokers, respectively), higher oxygenation index (206.4 ± 45.5 vs. 241.2 ± 51.1 vs. 242.4 ± 41.8 mmHg, p < 0.01), as well as lower arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (70.8 ± 12.7 vs. 58.85 ± 9.9 vs. 56.6 ± 6.5 mmHg, p < 0.001). Despite lower treatment intensity over these patients, amelioration of dyspnea, mitigation of cough, and elevation of oxygenation index were comparable to those of active smokers. However, in terms of patients exhibiting mMRC ≥2 and type 2 respiratory failure, amelioration of dyspnea was more common in nonsmokers as compared with passive smokers (46.4% vs. 83.3%, p < 0.05, passive and nonsmokers, respectively). In terms of patients exhibiting Global Initiative for COPD severity <3, mMRC ≥2, and type 2 respiratory failure, active smokers achieved the least mitigation of cough symptom (8.7% vs. 35.0% vs. 44.4%, p < 0.05). Similar results could be achieved after the effects of confounders were excluded, with the most prominent amelioration of dyspnea (odds ratio (OR) 3.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-13.6, p < 0.05, as compared with active smokers) and cough (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.0-10.7, p < 0.05) in nonsmokers, and relatively better amelioration of hypoxemia in passive smokers (oxygenation index change, 39.0 ± 34.6 vs. 51.5 ± 32.4 vs. 45.3 ± 25.4 mmHg, p < 0.05). In brief, passive or nonsmokers with AECOPD were subjected to less severe disease, and nonsmokers, especially patients with more severe disease, might achieve the optimal enhancement of clinical presentation after treatment.