Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterised by reduced functional capacity, dyspnoea and exercise-induced hypoxia. Pulmonary rehabilitation, an intervention that includes exercise training, is ...beneficial for people with other chronic lung conditions; however its effects in ILD have not been well characterised.
• To determine whether pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with ILD has beneficial effects on exercise capacity, symptoms, quality of life and survival compared with no pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with ILD.• To assess the safety of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with ILD.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (all searched from inception to June 2014). We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies, international clinical trial registries and respiratory conference abstracts to look for qualifying studies.
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which pulmonary rehabilitation was compared with no pulmonary rehabilitation or with other therapy in people with ILD of any origin were included.
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Study authors were contacted to provide missing data and information regarding adverse effects. A priori subgroup analyses were specified for participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and participants with severe lung disease (low diffusing capacity or desaturation during exercise). We planned to subgroup according to training modality applied, but there were insufficient data.
Nine studies were included, six of which were published as abstracts. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis (86 participants who undertook pulmonary rehabilitation and 82 control participants). One study used a blinded assessor and intention-to-treat analysis. No adverse effects of pulmonary rehabilitation were reported. Pulmonary rehabilitation improved the six-minute walk distance with weighted mean difference (WMD) of 44.34 metres (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.04 to 62.64 metres) and improved oxygen consumption (VO2) peak with WMD of 1.24 mL/kg/min(-1) (95% CI 0.46 to 2.03 mL/kg/min(-1)). Improvements in six-minute walk distance and VO2 peak were also seen in the subgroup of participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (WMD 35.63 metres, 95% CI 16.02 to 55.23 metres; WMD 1.46 mL/kg/min(-1), 95% CI 0.54 to 2.39 mL/kg/min(-1), respectively). Reduced dyspnoea (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.28) following pulmonary rehabilitation was also seen in the IPF subgroup (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.25). Quality of life improved following pulmonary rehabilitation for all participants on a variety of measures (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98) and for the subgroup of people with IPF (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.03). Two studies reported longer-term outcomes, with no significant effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on clinical variables or survival at three or six months. Available data were insufficient to allow examination of the impact of disease severity or exercise training modality.
Pulmonary rehabilitation seems to be safe for people with ILD. Improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life are seen immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation, with benefits also evident in IPF. Because of inadequate reporting of methods and small numbers of included participants, the quality of evidence was low to moderate. Little evidence was available regarding longer-term effects of pulmonary rehabilitation.
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterised by reduced functional capacity, dyspnoea and exercise-induced hypoxia. Pulmonary rehabilitation is often used to improve symptoms, health-related ...quality of life and functional status in other chronic lung conditions. There is accumulating evidence for comparable effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD. However, further information is needed to clarify the long-term benefit and to strengthen the rationale for pulmonary rehabilitation to be incorporated into standard clinical management of people with ILD. This review updates the results reported in 2014.
To determine whether pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD has beneficial effects on exercise capacity, symptoms, quality of life and survival compared with no pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD. To assess the safety of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PEDro from inception to April 2020. We searched the reference lists of relevant studies, international clinical trial registries and respiratory conference abstracts to look for qualifying studies.
We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which pulmonary rehabilitation was compared with no pulmonary rehabilitation or with other therapy in people with ILD of any origin.
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request missing data and information regarding adverse effects. We specified a priori subgroup analyses for participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and participants with severe lung disease (low diffusing capacity or desaturation during exercise). There were insufficient data to perform the prespecified subgroup analysis for type of exercise training modality.
For this update, we included an additional 12 studies resulting in a total of 21 studies. We included 16 studies in the meta-analysis (356 participants undertook pulmonary rehabilitation and 319 were control participants). The mean age of participants ranged from 36 to 72 years and included people with ILD of varying aetiology, sarcoidosis or IPF (with mean transfer factor of carbon dioxide (TLCO) % predicted ranging from 37% to 63%). Most pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were conducted in an outpatient setting, with a small number conducted in home-based, inpatient or tele-rehabilitation settings. The duration of pulmonary rehabilitation ranged from three to 48 weeks. There was a moderate risk of bias due to the absence of outcome assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analyses and the inadequate reporting of randomisation and allocation procedures in 60% of the studies. Pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves the six-minute walk distance (6MWD) with mean difference (MD) of 40.07 metres, 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.70 to 47.44; 585 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be improvements in peak workload (MD 9.04 watts, 95% CI 6.07 to 12.0; 159 participants; low-certainty evidence), peak oxygen consumption (MD 1.28 mL/kg/minute, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.05; 94 participants; low-certainty evidence) and maximum ventilation (MD 7.21 L/minute, 95% CI 4.10 to 10.32; 94 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of participants with IPF, there were comparable improvements in 6MWD (MD 37.25 metres, 95% CI 26.16 to 48.33; 278 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), peak workload (MD 9.94 watts, 95% CI 6.39 to 13.49; low-certainty evidence), VO
(oxygen uptake) peak (MD 1.45 mL/kg/minute, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence) and maximum ventilation (MD 9.80 L/minute, 95% CI 6.06 to 13.53; 62 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on maximum heart rate was uncertain. Pulmonary rehabilitation may reduce dyspnoea in participants with ILD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.14; 348 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in the IPF subgroup (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.09; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves health-related quality of life: there were improvements in all four domains of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for participants with ILD and for the subgroup of people with IPF. The improvement in SGRQ Total score was -9.29 for participants with ILD (95% CI -11.06 to -7.52; 478 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and -7.91 for participants with IPF (95% CI -10.55 to -5.26; 194 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies reported longer-term outcomes, with improvements in exercise capacity, dyspnoea and health-related quality of life still evident six to 12 months following the intervention period (6MWD: MD 32.43, 95% CI 15.58 to 49.28; 297 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; dyspnoea: MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.10; 335 participants; SGRQ Total score: MD -4.93, 95% CI -7.81 to -2.06; 240 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of participants with IPF, there were improvements at six to 12 months following the intervention for dyspnoea and SGRQ Impact score. The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on survival at long-term follow-up is uncertain. There were insufficient data to allow examination of the impact of disease severity or exercise training modality. Ten studies provided information on adverse events; however, there were no adverse events reported during rehabilitation. Four studies reported the death of one pulmonary rehabilitation participant; however, all four studies indicated this death was unrelated to the intervention received.
Pulmonary rehabilitation can be performed safely in people with ILD. Pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life in the short term, with benefits also probable in IPF. Improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life were sustained longer term. Dyspnoea and quality of life may be sustained in people with IPF. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate, due to inadequate reporting of methods, the lack of outcome assessment blinding and heterogeneity in some results. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, and to investigate ways to promote longer-lasting improvements, particularly for people with IPF.
Field walking tests are commonly employed to evaluate exercise capacity, assess prognosis and evaluate treatment response in chronic respiratory diseases. In recent years, there has been a wealth of ...new literature pertinent to the conduct of the 6-min walk test (6MWT), and a growing evidence base describing the incremental and endurance shuttle walk tests (ISWT and ESWT, respectively). The aim of this document is to describe the standard operating procedures for the 6MWT, ISWT and ESWT, which can be consistently employed by clinicians and researchers. The Technical Standard was developed by a multidisciplinary and international group of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the application of field walking tests. The procedures are underpinned by a concurrent systematic review of literature relevant to measurement properties and test conduct in adults with chronic respiratory disease. Current data confirm that the 6MWT, ISWT and ESWT are valid, reliable and responsive to change with some interventions. However, results are sensitive to small changes in methodology. It is important that two tests are conducted for the 6MWT and ISWT. This Technical Standard for field walking tests reflects current evidence regarding procedures that should be used to achieve robust results.
This systematic review examined the measurement properties of the 6-min walk test (6MWT), incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) in adults with chronic ...respiratory disease. Studies that report the evaluation or use of the 6MWT, ISWT or ESWT were included. We searched electronic databases for studies published between January 2000 and September 2013. The 6-min walking distance (6MWD) is a reliable measure (intra-class correlation coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 0.99 in seven studies). There is a learning effect, with greater distance walked on the second test (pooled mean improvement of 26 m in 13 studies). Reliability was similar for ISWT and ESWT, with a learning effect also evident for ISWT (pooled mean improvement of 20 m in six studies). The 6MWD correlates more strongly with peak work capacity (r=0.59-0.93) and physical activity (r=0.40-0.85) than with respiratory function (r=0.10-0.59). Methodological factors affecting 6MWD include track length, encouragement, supplemental oxygen and walking aids. Supplemental oxygen also affects ISWT and ESWT performance. Responsiveness was moderate to high for all tests, with greater responsiveness to interventions that included exercise training. The findings of this review demonstrate that the 6MWT, ISWT and ESWT are robust tests of functional exercise capacity in adults with chronic respiratory disease.
To examine the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) (exercise and education) or exercise training (ET) on exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), symptoms, frequency of ...exacerbations, and mortality compared with no treatment in adults with bronchiectasis.
Computer-based databases were searched from their inception to February 2016.
Randomized controlled trials of PR or ET versus no treatment in adults with bronchiectasis were included.
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodologic quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
Four trials with 164 participants were included, with variable study quality. Supervised outpatient PR or ET of 8 weeks improved incremental shuttle walk distance (weighted mean difference WMD=67m; 95% confidence interval CI, 52-82m) and disease-specific HRQOL (WMD=-4.65; 95% CI, -6.7 to -2.6 units) immediately after intervention, but these benefits were not sustained at 6 months. There was no effect on cough-related quality of life (WMD=1.3; 95% CI, -0.9 to 3.4 units) or psychological symptoms. PR commenced during an acute exacerbation and continued beyond discharge had no effect on exercise capacity or HRQOL. The frequency of exacerbations over 12 months was reduced with outpatient ET (median, 2 vs 1; P=.013), but PR initiated during an exacerbation had no impact on exacerbation frequency or mortality.
Short-term improvements in exercise capacity and HRQOL were achieved with supervised PR and ET programs, but sustaining these benefits is challenging in people with bronchiectasis. The frequency of exacerbations over 12 months was reduced with ET only.
ABSTRACT
Background and objective
The aim of the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Guidelines (Guidelines) is to provide evidence‐based recommendations for the practice of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) ...specific to Australian and New Zealand healthcare contexts.
Methods
The Guideline methodology adhered to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II criteria. Nine key questions were constructed in accordance with the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) format and reviewed by a COPD consumer group for appropriateness. Systematic reviews were undertaken for each question and recommendations made with the strength of each recommendation based on the GRADE (Gradings of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. The Guidelines were externally reviewed by a panel of experts.
Results
The Guideline panel recommended that patients with mild‐to‐severe COPD should undergo PR to improve quality of life and exercise capacity and to reduce hospital admissions; that PR could be offered in hospital gyms, community centres or at home and could be provided irrespective of the availability of a structured education programme; that PR should be offered to patients with bronchiectasis, interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension, with the latter in specialized centres. The Guideline panel was unable to make recommendations relating to PR programme length beyond 8 weeks, the optimal model for maintenance after PR, or the use of supplemental oxygen during exercise training. The strength of each recommendation and the quality of the evidence are presented in the summary.
Conclusion
The Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation Guidelines present an evaluation of the evidence for nine PICO questions, with recommendations to provide guidance for clinicians and policymakers.
See article, page 622
Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD) and ...bronchiectasis. However, relatively few people attend or complete a program, due to factors including a lack of programs, issues associated with travel and transport, and other health issues. Traditionally, pulmonary rehabilitation is delivered in-person on an outpatient basis at a hospital or other healthcare facility (referred to as centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation). Newer, alternative modes of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery include home-based models and the use of telehealth. Telerehabilitation is the delivery of rehabilitation services at a distance, using information and communication technology. To date, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the clinical efficacy or safety of telerehabilitation, or its ability to improve uptake and access to rehabilitation services, for people with chronic respiratory disease.
To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease.
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; six databases including MEDLINE and Embase; and three trials registries, up to 30 November 2020. We checked reference lists of all included studies for additional references, and handsearched relevant respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.
All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of telerehabilitation for the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation were eligible for inclusion. The telerehabilitation intervention was required to include exercise training, with at least 50% of the rehabilitation intervention being delivered by telerehabilitation.
We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias for all studies, and used the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias in non-randomised controlled clinical trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Comparisons were telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person (centre-based) pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation compared to no rehabilitation. We analysed studies of telerehabilitation for maintenance rehabilitation separately from trials of telerehabilitation for initial primary pulmonary rehabilitation.
We included a total of 15 studies (32 reports) with 1904 participants, using five different models of telerehabilitation. Almost all (99%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three studies were controlled clinical trials. For primary pulmonary rehabilitation, there was probably little or no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person pulmonary rehabilitation for exercise capacity measured as 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (mean difference (MD) 0.06 metres (m), 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.82 m to 10.94 m; 556 participants; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference for quality of life measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -1.26, 95% CI -3.97 to 1.45; 274 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence), or for breathlessness on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnoea domain score (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.40; 426 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to complete a program of telerehabilitation, with a 93% completion rate (95% CI 90% to 96%), compared to a 70% completion rate for in-person rehabilitation. When compared to no rehabilitation control, trials of primary telerehabilitation may increase exercise capacity on 6MWD (MD 22.17 m, 95% CI -38.89 m to 83.23 m; 94 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence) and may also increase 6MWD when delivered as maintenance rehabilitation (MD 78.1 m, 95% CI 49.6 m to 106.6 m; 209 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects of telerehabilitation were noted over and above any reported for in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation.
This review suggests that primary pulmonary rehabilitation, or maintenance rehabilitation, delivered via telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease achieves outcomes similar to those of traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with no safety issues identified. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by this review is limited by the small number of studies, of varying telerehabilitation models, with relatively few participants. Future research should consider the clinical effect of telerehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD, the duration of benefit of telerehabilitation beyond the period of the intervention, and the economic cost of telerehabilitation.
Pulmonary rehabilitation is a cornerstone of care for COPD but uptake of traditional centre-based programmes is poor. We assessed whether home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, delivered using minimal ...resources, had equivalent outcomes to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.
A randomised controlled equivalence trial with 12 months follow-up. Participants with stable COPD were randomly assigned to receive 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation by either the standard outpatient centre-based model, or a new home-based model including one home visit and seven once-weekly telephone calls from a physiotherapist. The primary outcome was change in 6 min walk distance (6MWD).
We enrolled 166 participants to receive centre-based rehabilitation (n=86) or home-based rehabilitation (n=80). Intention-to-treat analysis confirmed non-inferiority of home-based rehabilitation for 6MWD at end-rehabilitation and the confidence interval (CI) did not rule out superiority (mean difference favouring home group 18.6 m, 95% CI -3.3 to 40.7). At 12 months the CI did not exclude inferiority (-5.1 m, -29.2 to 18.9). Between-group differences for dyspnoea-related quality of life did not rule out superiority of home-based rehabilitation at programme completion (1.6 points, -0.3 to 3.5) and groups were equivalent at 12 months (0.05 points, -2.0 to 2.1). The per-protocol analysis showed the same pattern of findings. Neither group maintained postrehabilitation gains at 12 months.
This home-based pulmonary rehabilitation model, delivered with minimal resources, produced short-term clinical outcomes that were equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Neither model was effective in maintaining gains at 12 months. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation could be considered for people with COPD who cannot access centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.
NCT01423227, clinicaltrials.gov.
To establish the minimal important difference (MID) for the six-minute walk distance (6MWD) in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Analysis of data from an observational study ...using distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the MID in 6MWD.
Outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program at 2 teaching hospitals.
Seventy-five patients with COPD (44 men) in a stable clinical state with mean age 70 years (SD 9 y), forced expiratory volume in one second 52% (SD 21%) predicted and baseline walking distance 359 meters (SD 104 m).
Not applicable.
Participants completed the six-minute walk test before and after a 7-week pulmonary rehabilitation program. Participants and clinicians completed a global rating of change score while blinded to the change in 6MWD.
The mean change in 6MWD in participants who reported themselves to be unchanged was 17.7 meters, compared with 60.2 meters in those who reported small change and 78.4 meters in those who reported substantial change (P=.004). Anchor-based methods identified an MID of 25 meters (95% confidence interval 20-61 m). There was excellent agreement with distribution-based methods (25.5-26.5m, kappa=.95). A change in 6MWD of 14% compared with baseline also represented a clinically important effect; this threshold was less sensitive than for absolute change (sensitivity .70 vs .85).
The MID for 6MWD in COPD is 25 meters. Absolute change in 6MWD is a more sensitive indicator than percentage change from baseline. These data support the use of 6MWD as a patient-important outcome in research and clinical practice.
Uncertainty exists regarding the clinical relevance of exercise training across the range of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs).
To establish the impact of exercise training in patients with ILDs of ...differing aetiology and severity.
142 participants with ILD (61 idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), 22 asbestosis, 23 connective tissue disease-related ILD (CTD-ILD) and 36 with other aetiologies) were randomised to either 8 weeks of supervised exercise training or usual care. Six-minute walk distance (6MWD), Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRDQ), St George Respiratory Questionnaire IPF-specific version (SGRQ-I) and modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score were measured at baseline, 9 weeks and 6 months.
Exercise training significantly increased 6MWD (25 m, 95% CI 2 to 47 m) and health-related quality of life (CRDQ and SGRQ-I) in people with ILD. Larger improvements in 6MWD, CRDQ, SGRQ-I and dyspnoea occurred in asbestosis and IPF compared with CTD-ILD, but with few significant differences between subgroups. Benefits declined at 6 months except in CTD-ILD. Lower baseline 6MWD and worse baseline symptoms were associated with greater benefit in 6MWD and symptoms following training. Greater gains were seen in those whose exercise prescription was successfully progressed according to the protocol. At 6 months, sustained improvements in 6MWD and symptoms were associated with better baseline lung function and less pulmonary hypertension.
Exercise training is effective in patients across the range of ILDs, with clinically meaningful benefits in asbestosis and IPF. Successful exercise progression maximises improvements and sustained treatment effects favour those with milder disease.
Results, ACTRN12611000416998.
PDF
