Key result
Enhanced pulmonary rehabilitation (n=108) did not result in superior improvement of physical activity and health outcomes compared with traditional PR (n=99), except for reduced physician visits.
Why the study?
Pulmonary rehabilitation has limited success in promoting sustained physical activity in COPD, and PR with a strong focus on disease self-management may better facilitate long-term behavior change.
Does an enhanced pulmonary rehabilitation program improve physical activity and health outcomes compared to traditional pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD?
RCT (n=207)
block-randomized
Does an enhanced pulmonary rehabilitation program improve physical activity and health outcomes compared to traditional pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD?
An enhanced pulmonary rehabilitation program focused on self-management did not improve physical activity or quality of life more than traditional rehabilitation, but did reduce healthcare utilization.
EPR vs traditional PR RCT in COPD may support self-management emphasis for sustained activity; leaves open optimal program design pending full outcome data.
Rationale Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the most effective strategy to improve health outcomes in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although it has had limited success in promoting sustained physical activity. PR with a strong focus on disease self-management may better facilitate long-term behavior change. Objectives To compare a newly developed enhanced PR (EPR) program with a traditional PR program on outcome achievement. Methods In this randomized parallel-group controlled trial, PR classes were block-randomized to EPR or traditional PR and were delivered over 16 sessions each. The EPR program incorporated new and updated “Living Well with COPD” education modules, which had a stronger focus on chronic disease self-management. Fidelity of the intervention for content and delivery was assessed. Physical activity, self-efficacy, exercise tolerance, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were collected before, after, and 6 months after PR. Healthcare visits were collected 2 years before PR and 1 year after. Mortality was recorded 1 year after PR. Results Of the 207 patients with COPD enrolled, 108 received EPR and 99 received traditional PR. Physical activity (steps) and self-efficacy improved from before to after PR in both programs, with no differences between groups. These effects were not sustained at 6 months. Exercise tolerance and HRQoL improved from before to after PR with no between-group differences and were maintained at 6 months. Visits to primary care providers and respiratory specialists decreased in the EPR program relative to the traditional PR program. EPR was delivered as intended, and there was no meaningful cross-contamination between the two programs. Conclusions Enhancing PR to have a greater emphasis on chronic disease self-management did not result in a superior improvement of physical activity and health outcomes compared with traditional PR except for reduced resource usage from primary and specialist physician visits in the EPR program.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02917915).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Selzler et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n=207). Enhanced pulmonary rehabilitation (EPR) program vs. Traditional pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program was evaluated on Physical activity, self-efficacy, exercise tolerance, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Enhanced pulmonary rehabilitation (n=108) did not result in superior improvement of physical activity and health outcomes compared with traditional PR (n=99), except for reduced physician visits.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: