Respiratory medicine · 2022
Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease according to inhaled therapy: The Maugeri study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vitacca Michele, Paneroni Mara, Spanevello Antonio, Ceriana Piero, Balbi Bruno, Salvi Beatrice, Ambrosino Nicolino
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Real-life studies report discordant prescribing of inhaled triple therapy (TT) among individuals with COPD. Guidelines recommend pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for persistent breathlessness and/or exercise limitation. This real-life study aimed to assess the effects of in-patient PR in individuals under TT as compared to other inhaled therapies (no TT).
METHODS: Multicentric, retrospective analysis of data from individuals admitted to in-hospital PR. Baseline characteristics were recorded and lung function was assessed. Outcome measures were: 6-min walking test (6MWT: primary outcome), Medical Research Council (MRC) scale for dyspnoea, and COPD assessment test (CAT).
RESULTS: Data of pre and post program 6MWT of 1139 individuals were available. Pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in significant improvement in 6MWT in both groups, however, the effect size (by 54.3 ± 69.7 vs 42.5 ± 64.2 m, p = 0.004) and proportion of individuals reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 6MWT (64.2%, vs 54.3%, p = 0.001) were higher in TT group. Both groups significantly improved also the other outcome measures. The significant independent predictors of reaching the MCID of 6MWT were hospital provenience, TT use, and high eosinophils count.
CONCLUSION: Pulmonary rehabilitation results in significant benefits in individuals with COPD irrespective of the use of TT. However, individuals under TT report larger benefits in exercise tolerance than those under no TT.
METHODS: Multicentric, retrospective analysis of data from individuals admitted to in-hospital PR. Baseline characteristics were recorded and lung function was assessed. Outcome measures were: 6-min walking test (6MWT: primary outcome), Medical Research Council (MRC) scale for dyspnoea, and COPD assessment test (CAT).
RESULTS: Data of pre and post program 6MWT of 1139 individuals were available. Pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in significant improvement in 6MWT in both groups, however, the effect size (by 54.3 ± 69.7 vs 42.5 ± 64.2 m, p = 0.004) and proportion of individuals reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 6MWT (64.2%, vs 54.3%, p = 0.001) were higher in TT group. Both groups significantly improved also the other outcome measures. The significant independent predictors of reaching the MCID of 6MWT were hospital provenience, TT use, and high eosinophils count.
CONCLUSION: Pulmonary rehabilitation results in significant benefits in individuals with COPD irrespective of the use of TT. However, individuals under TT report larger benefits in exercise tolerance than those under no TT.