Pulmonary Rehabilitation Using Minimal Equipment for People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Physical therapy OBJECTIVE:Pulmonary rehabilitation programs that use minimal equipment for exercise training, rather than gymnasium equipment, would enable delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation to a greater number of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The effectiveness of minimal equipment programs in people with COPD is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation using minimal equipment for aerobic and/or resistance training in people with COPD. METHODS:Literature databases were searched up to September 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of minimal equipment programs with usual care or with exercise equipment-based programs for exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and strength. RESULTS:Nineteen RCTs were included in the review and 14 RCTs were included in the meta-analyses, which reported low to moderate certainty of evidence. Compared with usual care, minimal equipment programs increased 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by 85 m (95% CI = 37 to 132 m). No difference in 6MWD was observed between minimal equipment and exercise equipment-based programs (14 m, 95% CI = -27 to 56 m). Minimal equipment programs were more effective than usual care for improving HRQoL (standardized mean difference = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.31 to 1.67) and were not different from exercise equipment-based programs for improving upper limb strength (6 N, 95% CI = -2 to 13 N) or lower limb strength (20 N, 95% CI = -30 to 71 N). CONCLUSION:In people with COPD, pulmonary rehabilitation programs using minimal equipment elicit clinically significant improvements in 6MWD and HRQoL and are comparable with exercise equipment-based programs for improving 6MWD and strength. IMPACT:Pulmonary rehabilitation programs using minimal equipment may be a suitable alternative in settings where access to gymnasium equipment is limited. Delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation programs using minimal equipment may improve access to pulmonary rehabilitation worldwide, particularly in rural and remote areas and in developing countries. 10.1093/ptj/pzad013

Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Adults with Chronic Respiratory Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine Despite the known benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with chronic respiratory disease, this treatment is underused. Evidence-based guidelines should lead to greater knowledge of the proven benefits of PR, highlight the role of PR in evidence-based health care, and in turn foster referrals to and more effective delivery of PR for people with chronic respiratory disease. The multidisciplinary panel formulated six research questions addressing PR for specific patient groups (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary hypertension) and models for PR delivery (telerehabilitation, maintenance PR). Treatment effects were quantified using systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to formulate clinical recommendations. The panel made the following judgments: strong recommendations for PR for adults with stable COPD (moderate-quality evidence) and after hospitalization for COPD exacerbation (moderate-quality evidence), strong recommendation for PR for adults with interstitial lung disease (moderate-quality evidence), conditional recommendation for PR for adults with pulmonary hypertension (low-quality evidence), strong recommendation for offering the choice of center-based PR or telerehabilitation for patients with chronic respiratory disease (moderate-quality evidence), and conditional recommendation for offering either supervised maintenance PR or usual care after initial PR for adults with COPD (low-quality evidence). These guidelines provide the basis for evidence-based delivery of PR for people with chronic respiratory disease. 10.1164/rccm.202306-1066ST

Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews BACKGROUND: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. OBJECTIVES:To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease. SEARCH METHODS: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. SELECTION CRITERIA: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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: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. MAIN RESULTS: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. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: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. 10.1002/14651858.CD013040.pub2