Search

Pulmonary rehabilitation is a highly effective treatment for people with chronic lung disease but remains underused across the world. Recent years have seen the emergence of new program models that aim to improve access and uptake, including telerehabilitation and low-cost, home-based models. This workshop was convened to achieve consensus on the essential components of pulmonary rehabilitation and to identify requirements for successful implementation of emerging program models. A Delphi process involving experts from across the world identified 13 essential components of pulmonary rehabilitation that must be delivered in any program model, encompassing patient assessment, program content, method of delivery, and quality assurance, as well as 27 desirable components. Only those models of pulmonary rehabilitation that have been tested in clinical trials are currently considered as ready for implementation. The characteristics of patients most likely to succeed in each program model are not yet known, and research is needed in this area. Health professionals should use clinical judgment to determine those patients who are best served by a center-based, multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. A comprehensive patient assessment is critical for personalization of pulmonary rehabilitation and for effectively addressing individual patient goals. Robust quality-assurance processes are important to ensure that any pulmonary rehabilitation service delivers optimal outcomes for patients and health services. Workforce capacity-building and training should consider the skills necessary for emerging models, many of which are delivered remotely. The success of all pulmonary rehabilitation models will be judged on whether the essential components are delivered and on whether the expected patient outcomes, including improved exercise capacity, reduced dyspnea, enhanced health-related quality of life, and reduced hospital admissions, are achieved.

Rationale: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has demonstrated physiological, symptom-reducing, psychosocial, and health economic benefits for patients with chronic respiratory diseases, yet it is underutilized worldwide. Insufficient funding, resources, and reimbursement; lack of healthcare professional, payer, and patient awareness and knowledge; and additional patient-related barriers all contribute to the gap between the knowledge of the science and benefits of PR and the actual delivery of PR services to suitable patients., Objectives: The objectives of this document are to enhance implementation, use, and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation to suitable individuals worldwide., Methods: Members of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Rehabilitation and Chronic Care Group established a Task Force and writing committee to develop a policy statement on PR. The document was modified based on feedback from expert peer reviewers. After cycles of review and revisions, the statement was reviewed and formally approved by the Board of Directors of the ATS and the Science Council and Executive Committee of the ERS., Main Results: This document articulates policy recommendations for advancing healthcare professional, payer, and patient awareness and knowledge of PR, increasing patient access to PR, and ensuring quality of PR programs. It also recommends areas of future research to establish evidence to support the development of an updated funding and reimbursement policy regarding PR., Conclusions: The ATS and ERS commit to undertake actions that will improve access to and delivery of PR services for suitable patients. They call on their members and other health professional societies, payers, patients, and patient advocacy groups to join in this commitment.

The multidisciplinary treatment of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), which includes exercise training, self-management education, and psychosocial and nutritional intervention, is now a standard of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and has been incorporated into major guidelines. We must now focus efforts on improving its impact and widening its applicability. What is the direction of PR; where does it fit in the comprehensive care of the COPD patient; and how can clinicians best apply this important intervention? This was the charge of the roundtable discussion, Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Moving Forward, involving 20 experts from North America and Europe, which was convened in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in early 2008. It is not meant to be an exhaustive review; rather, this report summarizes the roundtable proceedings, while providing direction to best position PR into the continuum of COPD care. By consensus, it was agreed upon that although PR is effective for other chronic respiratory diseases, the discussion focus was COPD since most of the evidence base and patient referral are for this disease. These proceedings provide insight into 3 broad areas appropriate for investigation or implementation: positioning PR in an integrated care model for COPD patients; improving the effectiveness of this intervention; and expanding the recognition, application, and accessibility to PR. It is the hope that this document will provide a catalyst for clinicians, investigators, and healthcare policy makers to help realize these goals as well as serve to suggest important areas for future research and development in PR.

The natural course of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is complicated by the development of systemic consequences and co-morbidities. These may be major features in the clinical presentation of COPD, prompting increasing interest. Systemic consequences may be defined as non-pulmonary manifestations of COPD with an immediate cause-and-effect relationship, whereas co-morbidities are diseases associated with COPD. The major systemic consequences/co-morbidities now recognized are: deconditioning, exercise intolerance, skeletal muscle dysfunction, osteoporosis, metabolic impact, anxiety and depression, cardiovascular disease, and mortality. The mechanisms by which these develop are unclear. Probably many factors are involved. Two appear of paramount importance: systemic inflammation, which presents in some patients with stable disease and virtually all patients during exacerbations, and inactivity, which may be a key link to most COPD-related co-morbidities. Further studies are required to determine the role of inflammatory cells/mediators involved in systemic inflammatory processes in causing co-morbidities; the link between activity and co-morbidities; and how COPD therapy may affect activity. Both key mechanisms appear to be influenced significantly by COPD exacerbations. Importantly, although the prevalence of systemic consequences increases with increasing severity of airflow obstruction, both systemic consequences and co-morbidities are already present in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Stage II. This supports the concept of early intervention in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Although at present early intervention studies in COPD are lacking, circumstantial evidence suggests that current treatments may influence events leading to the systemic consequences and co-morbidities, and thus may affect the clinical manifestations of the disease.