Search

Introduction: Although mean physical activity in COPD patients declines by 400–500 steps/day annually, it is unknown whether the natural progression is the same for all patients. We aimed to identify distinct physical activity progression patterns using a hypothesis-free approach and to assess their determinants. Methods: We pooled data from two cohorts (usual care arm of Urban Training [NCT01897298] and PROactive initial validation [NCT01388218] studies) measuring physical activity at baseline and 12 months (Dynaport MoveMonitor). We identified clusters (patterns) of physical activity progression (based on levels and changes of steps/day) using k-means, and compared baseline sociodemographic, interpersonal, environmental, clinical and psychological characteristics across patterns. Results: In 291 COPD patients (mean ± SD 68 ± 8 years, 81% male, FEV1 59 ± 19%pred) we identified three distinct physical activity progression patterns: Inactive (n = 173 [59%], baseline: 4621 ± 1757 steps/day, 12-month change (Δ): −487 ± 1201 steps/day), Active Improvers (n = 49 [17%], baseline: 7727 ± 3275 steps/day, Δ: + 3378 ± 2203 steps/day) and Active Decliners (n = 69 [24%], baseline: 11 267 ± 3009 steps/day, Δ: −2217 ± 2085 steps/day). After adjustment in a mixed multinomial logistic regression model using Active Decliners as reference pattern, a lower 6-min walking distance (RRR [95% CI] 0.94 [0.90–0.98] per 10 m, P = .001) and a higher mMRC dyspnea score (1.71 [1.12–2.60] per 1 point, P = .012) were independently related with being Inactive. No baseline variable was independently associated with being an Active Improver. Conclusions: The natural progression in physical activity over time in COPD patients is heterogeneous. While Inactive patients relate to worse scores for clinical COPD characteristics, Active Improvers and Decliners cannot be predicted at baseline. Introducción: Aunque la actividad física en pacientes con EPOC declina una media anual de 400-500 pasos/día, se desconoce si esta progresión es igual en todos los pacientes. Este estudio pretendió identificar los patrones de progresión de la actividad física mediante métodos libres de hipótesis y evaluar sus determinantes. Métodos: Se estudiaron 291 pacientes con EPOC estable (media ± DE: 68 ± 8 años, 81% hombres, VEMS 59 ± 19%pred) de dos cohortes europeas con actividad física basal y a 12 meses (acelerómetro Dynaport MoveMonitor). Se identificaron conglomerados (patrones) de progresión de actividad física basados en los niveles y cambios de pasos/día usando k-means, y se compararon entre patrones las características sociodemográficas, interpersonales, ambientales, clínicas y psicosociales basales. Resultados: Se identificaron tres patrones: inactivo (n = 173 [59%], basal: 4.621 ± 1.757 pasos/día, cambio en 12 meses (Δ): −487 ± 1.201 pasos/día), activo que aumenta (n = 49 [17%], basal: 7.727 ± 3.275 pasos/día, Δ: +3.378 ± 2.203 pasos/día) y activo que reduce (n = 69 [24%], basal: 11.267 ± 3.009 pasos/día, Δ: −2.217 ± 2.085 pasos/día). La distancia en la prueba de la marcha de 6 minutos (6MWD) y la disnea se asociaron independientemente con ser inactivo: RRR [IC 95%] 0,94 [0,90-0,98] por cada 10 m de 6MWD (p = 0,001) y 1,71 [1,12-2,60] por cada punto en la escala mMRC (p = 0,012), respectivamente, en comparación con el patrón activo que reduce. No se encontraron variables basales independientemente asociadas con ser activo que aumenta. Conclusiones: La progresión natural de la actividad física en pacientes con EPOC es heterogénea. Mientras que el patrón de pacientes inactivo se relaciona con peores características clínicas de EPOC, no se pudo predecir la evolución de los activos a aumentar o reducir. info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

Non-pharmacological treatment is essential in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but this treatment is sometimes not given the importance it deserves. Patients diagnosed with COPD should benefit from comprehensive care services. These services comprise a protocolized set of actions aimed at covering the health needs of the patient, taking into account their environment and circumstances. Pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the essential components of non-pharmacological treatment in comprehensive COPD care services. In the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2017, we provided a systematic report of the scientific evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation programs in acute and stable phase disease. Another important issue in the non-pharmacological treatment of COPD is physical activity, and the most essential considerations regarding prescription are described in the GesEPOC guidelines, along with a review of the most effective strategies to ensure adherence. GesEPOC 2017 aims to underline the importance of non-pharmacological treatment as a co-adjuvant to pharmacological treatment. (C) 2018 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

RATIONALE: Reduced physical activity (PA) in patients with COPD is associated with a poor prognosis. Increasing PA is a key therapeutic target, but thus far few strategies have been found effective in this patient group. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of a 12-week semiautomated telecoaching intervention on PA in patients with COPD in a multicentre European randomised controlled trial. METHODS: 343 patients from six centres, encompassing a wide spectrum of disease severity, were randomly allocated to either a usual care group (UCG) or a telecoaching intervention group (IG) between June and December 2014. This 12-week intervention included an exercise booklet and a step counter providing feedback both directly and via a dedicated smartphone application. The latter provided an individualised daily activity goal (steps) revised weekly and text messages as well as allowing occasional telephone contacts with investigators. PA was measured using accelerometry during 1 week preceding randomisation and during week 12. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity and health status. Analyses were based on modified intention to treat. MAIN RESULTS: Both groups were comparable at baseline in terms of factors influencing PA. At 12 weeks, the intervention yielded a between-group difference of mean, 95% CI (lower limit - upper limit; ll-ul) +1469, 95% CI (971 to 1965) steps/day and +10.4, 95% CI (6.1 to 14.7) min/day moderate PA; favouring the IG (all p, Rationale Reduced physical activity (PA) in patients with COPD is associated with a poor prognosis. Increasing PA is a key therapeutic target, but thus far few strategies have been found effective in this patient group. Objectives To investigate the effectiveness of a 12-week semiautomated telecoaching intervention on PA in patients with COPD in a multicentre European randomised controlled trial. Methods 343 patients from six centres, encompassing a wide spectrum of disease severity, were randomly allocated to either a usual care group (UCG) or a telecoaching intervention group (IG) between June and December 2014. This 12-week intervention included an exercise booklet and a step counter providing feedback both directly and via a dedicated smartphone application. The latter provided an individualised daily activity goal (steps) revised weekly and text messages as well as allowing occasional telephone contacts with investigators. PA was measured using accelerometry during 1 week preceding randomisation and during week 12. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity and health status. Analyses were based on modified intention to treat. Main results Both groups were comparable at baseline in terms of factors influencing PA. At 12 weeks, the intervention yielded a between-group difference of mean, 95% CI (lower limit – upper limit; ll-ul) +1469, 95% CI (971 to 1965) steps/day and +10.4, 95% CI (6.1 to 14.7) min/day moderate PA; favouring the IG (all p≤0.001). The change in 6-min walk distance was significantly different (13.4, 95% CI (3.40 to 23.5) m, p

Acting to address the amount of physical activity of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is recommended as part of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations [1]. A level lower than approximately 5000 steps for day (sedentary lifestyle index) is associated with significantly increased health risks [2, 3]. Actively screening to identify patients below this threshold could be an important step towards targeting interventions to increase physical activity. Potential screening tools include activity monitors (objective assessment) or self-reported questionnaires (subjective assessment) to measure the amount of physical activity [4]. The latter method, which is feasible in clinical practice, may not result in an accurate representation in an individual patient, as questionnaire responses tend to misclassify physical activity [5]. Although more accurate and widely used in research, activity monitoring is not yet commonly included in patients' routine assessment. Several health status questionnaires in routine clinical use contain a domain or dimension related to physical activity [6]. In the analytical framework of Leidy [7], functional performance has been defined as the physical, psychological, social, occupational and spiritual activities that people actually do in the normal course of their lives to meet basic needs, fulfil usual roles, and maintain their health and wellbeing. A review by Kocks et al . [8] proposed that these questionnaires could be used in the measurement of functional performance (defined as “what a patient is actually doing”) and that this would be a more practical alternative to physical activity monitoring. Whether this approach is sufficiently valid as a representation of physical activity levels in clinical practice remains to be established. Health status questionnaires provide only limited insight into the physical activity of patients with COPD The PROactive Consortium members are as follows. Nathalie Ivanoff: Almirall, Barcelona, Spain; Niklas Karlsson and Solange Corriol-Rohou: AstraZeneca AB, Molndal, Sweden; Ian Jarrod: British Lung Foundation, London, UK; Damijen Erzen: Boehringer Ingelheim, Nieder-Ingelheim, Germany; Mario Scuri and Roberta Montacchini: Chiesi Farmaceutici S.A. Parma, Italy; Paul McBride: Choice Healthcare Solutions, Hitchin, UK; Nadia Kamel: European Respiratory Society, Lausanne, Switzerland; Margaret Tabberer: GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK; Thierry Troosters, Wim Janssens and Fabienne Dobbels,: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Judith Garcia-Aymerich, Municipal Institute of Medical Research, Barcelona, Spain; Pim de Boer: Netherlands Lung Foundation, Amersfoort, The Netherlands; Karoly Kulich and Alastair Glendenning: Novartis, Basel, Switzerland; Michael I. Polkey and Nick S. Hopkinson: Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Ioannis Vogiatzis: Thorax Research Foundation, Athens, Greece; Enkeleida Nikai: UCB, Brussels, Belgium; Thys van der Molen and Corina De Jong: University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands; Roberto A. Rabinovich and Bill MacNee: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Milo A. Puhan and Anja Frei: University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.