The reference values support the interpretation of 1-min STS test performance and identification of subjects with decreased lower body muscular strength and endurance.

Our aim was to comprehensively validate the 1-min sit-to-stand (STS) test in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and explore the physiological response to the test.We used data from two longitudinal studies of COPD patients who completed inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programmes. We collected 1-min STS test, 6-min walk test (6MWT), health-related quality of life, dyspnoea and exercise cardiorespiratory data at admission and discharge. We assessed the learning effect, test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness and minimal important difference of the 1-min STS test.In both studies (n=52 and n=203) the 1-min STS test was strongly correlated with the 6MWT at admission (r=0.59 and 0.64, respectively) and discharge (r=0.67 and 0.68, respectively). Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% CI) between 1-min STS tests were 0.93 (0.83-0.97) for learning effect and 0.99 (0.97-1.00) for reliability. Standardised response means (95% CI) were 0.87 (0.58-1.16) and 0.91 (0.78-1.07). The estimated minimal important difference was three repetitions. End-exercise oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide output, ventilation, breathing frequency and heart rate were similar in the 1-min STS test and 6MWT.The 1-min STS test is a reliable, valid and responsive test for measuring functional exercise capacity in COPD patients and elicited a physiological response comparable to that of the 6MWT.

In a Swiss working adult population, occupational exposures to biological dusts, mineral dusts, gases/fumes, and VGDF were associated with incidence of COPD of at least moderate severity.

Our field study provides novel data on nocturnal oxygen saturation, breathing patterns, and ventilation at very high altitude. It demonstrates that periodic breathing increases during acclimatization over 2 weeks at altitudes greater than 3,730 m, despite improved oxygen saturation consistent with a progressive increase in loop gain of the respiratory control system. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00514826).

BackgroundThe feasibility of randomized trials often depends on successful patient recruitment. Although numerous recruitment barriers have been identified it is unclear which of them complicate recruitment most. Also, most surveys have focused on the patients' perspective of recruitment barriers whereas the perspective of recruiting physicians has received less attention. Therefore, our aim was to conduct a postal survey among recruiting physicians of a multi-center trial to weigh barriers according to their impact on recruitment.MethodsWe identified any potential recruitment barriers from the literature and from our own experience with a multi-center trial of respiratory rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We developed and pilot-tested a self-administered questionnaire where recruiting physicians were asked to express their agreement with statements about recruitment barriers on a Likert-type scale from 1 (full agreement with statement = very substantial recruitment barrier) to 7 (no agreement with statement = no recruitment barrier).Results38 of 55 recruiting physicians returned questionnaires (69% response rate), of which 35 could be analyzed (64% useable response rate). Recruiting physicians reported that "time constraints" (median agreement of 3, interquartile range 2–5) had the most negative impact on recruitment followed by "difficulties including identified eligible patients" (median agreement of 5, IQR 3–6). Other barriers such as "trial design barriers", "lack of access to treatment", "individual barriers of recruiting physicians" or "insufficient training of recruiting physicians" were perceived to have little or no impact on patient recruitment.ConclusionPhysicians perceived time constraints as the most relevant recruitment barrier in a randomized trial. To overcome recruitment barriers interventions, that are affordable for both industry- and investigator-driven trials, need to be developed and tested in randomized trials.Trial registrationISRCTN84612310

Investigations studying the secretion of EPO (erythropoietin) in response to acute hypoxia have produced mixed results. Further, the errors associated with the various methods used to determine EPO are not well documented. The purpose of the current study was to determine the EPO response of 17 trained male subjects to either an acute bout of normobaric hypoxia (Hy; n = 10) or normoxia (Con; n = 7). A secondary aim was to determine the error associated with the measurement of EPO. After baseline tests, the treatment group (Hy) underwent a single bout of hypoxic exposure (F(I(O(2))) approximately 0.148; 3100 m) consisting of a 90-min rest period followed by a 30-min exercise phase (50% V(O)(2max)). Venous blood samples were drawn pre (0 min) and post (120 min) each test to assess changes in plasma EPO (DeltaEPO). The control (Con) group was subjected to the same general experimental design, but placed in a normoxic environment (F(I(O(2))) approximately 0.2093). The Hy group demonstrated a mean increase in EPO [19.3 (4.4) vs. 24.1 (5.1) mU/mL], p < 0.04, post 120 min of normobaric hypoxia. The calculated technical error of measurement for EPO was 2.1 mU/mL (9.8%). It was concluded that an acute bout of hypoxia, has the capacity to elevate plasma EPO. This study also demonstrates that the increase in EPO accumulation was 2 times greater than the calculated measurement of error.

The restrictive spirometric pattern is associated with a substantial morbidity and mortality burden. We sought to determine to what extent spirometric restriction is associated with impaired quality of life.We used data from two large population-based European cohorts: 6698 European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) and 6069 Swiss Cohort Study on Air Pollution and Lung and Heart Diseases in Adults (SAPALDIA) adult participants. The restrictive pattern was defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ≥lower limit of normal (LLN) and FVC

No abstract