Cargando…

Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses

PURPOSE: Most guidelines recommend pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC) levels ≥2, but the effectiveness of PR in patients with less advanced disease is not well established. Our aim wa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rugbjerg, Mette, Iepsen, Ulrik Winning, Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl, Lange, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407740/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25945044
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S78607
_version_ 1782367951439003648
author Rugbjerg, Mette
Iepsen, Ulrik Winning
Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl
Lange, Peter
author_facet Rugbjerg, Mette
Iepsen, Ulrik Winning
Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl
Lange, Peter
author_sort Rugbjerg, Mette
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Most guidelines recommend pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC) levels ≥2, but the effectiveness of PR in patients with less advanced disease is not well established. Our aim was to investigate the effects of PR in patients with COPD and mMRC ≤1. METHODS: The methodology was developed as a part of evidence-based guideline development and is in accordance with the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through a systematic, multidatabase literature search and selected RCTs comparing the effects of PR with usual care in patients with COPD and mMRC ≤1. Predefined critical outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse effects and mortality, while walking distance, maximal exercise capacity, muscle strength, and dropouts were important outcomes. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and graded the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed when deemed feasible. RESULTS: Four RCTs (489 participants) were included. On the basis of moderate-quality evidence, we found a clinically and statistically significant improvement in short-term HRQoL of 4.2 units (95% confidence interval [CI]: [−4.51 to −3.89]) on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, but not at the longest follow-up. We also found a statistically significant improvement of 25.71 m (95% CI: [15.76–35.65]) in the 6-minute walk test with PR; however, this improvement was not considered clinically relevant. No difference was found for mortality, and insufficient data prohibited meta-analysis for muscle strength and maximal exercise capacity. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: We found a moderate quality of evidence suggesting a small, significant improvement in short-term HRQoL and a clinically nonsignificant improvement in walking distance following PR in patients with COPD and mild symptoms. This resulted in a weak recommendation of routine PR in these patients using the GRADE approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4407740
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44077402015-05-05 Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses Rugbjerg, Mette Iepsen, Ulrik Winning Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl Lange, Peter Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Review PURPOSE: Most guidelines recommend pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC) levels ≥2, but the effectiveness of PR in patients with less advanced disease is not well established. Our aim was to investigate the effects of PR in patients with COPD and mMRC ≤1. METHODS: The methodology was developed as a part of evidence-based guideline development and is in accordance with the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through a systematic, multidatabase literature search and selected RCTs comparing the effects of PR with usual care in patients with COPD and mMRC ≤1. Predefined critical outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse effects and mortality, while walking distance, maximal exercise capacity, muscle strength, and dropouts were important outcomes. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and graded the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed when deemed feasible. RESULTS: Four RCTs (489 participants) were included. On the basis of moderate-quality evidence, we found a clinically and statistically significant improvement in short-term HRQoL of 4.2 units (95% confidence interval [CI]: [−4.51 to −3.89]) on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, but not at the longest follow-up. We also found a statistically significant improvement of 25.71 m (95% CI: [15.76–35.65]) in the 6-minute walk test with PR; however, this improvement was not considered clinically relevant. No difference was found for mortality, and insufficient data prohibited meta-analysis for muscle strength and maximal exercise capacity. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: We found a moderate quality of evidence suggesting a small, significant improvement in short-term HRQoL and a clinically nonsignificant improvement in walking distance following PR in patients with COPD and mild symptoms. This resulted in a weak recommendation of routine PR in these patients using the GRADE approach. Dove Medical Press 2015-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4407740/ /pubmed/25945044 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S78607 Text en © 2015 Rugbjerg et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Rugbjerg, Mette
Iepsen, Ulrik Winning
Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl
Lange, Peter
Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses
title Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses
title_full Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses
title_fullStr Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses
title_short Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses
title_sort effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in copd with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407740/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25945044
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S78607
work_keys_str_mv AT rugbjergmette effectivenessofpulmonaryrehabilitationincopdwithmildsymptomsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalyses
AT iepsenulrikwinning effectivenessofpulmonaryrehabilitationincopdwithmildsymptomsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalyses
AT jørgensenkarstenjuhl effectivenessofpulmonaryrehabilitationincopdwithmildsymptomsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalyses
AT langepeter effectivenessofpulmonaryrehabilitationincopdwithmildsymptomsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalyses