These results show that the respiratory system reached or approached its physiologic limit in mild COPD at a lower peak work rate and ventilation than in healthy participants. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00975403).
The evaluation of dyspnea and its responsiveness to therapy in COPD should consider the multidimensional nature of this symptom in each of its sensory-perceptual (intensity, quality), affective and impact domains. To gain new insights into mechanisms of dyspnea relief following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), we examined effects on the major domains of dyspnea and their interaction with physiological training effects. This randomized, controlled study was conducted in 48 subjects with COPD. Subjects received either 8-weeks of PR or usual care (CTRL). Pre- and post-intervention assessments included: sensory-perceptual (i.e., exertional dyspnea intensity, dyspnea descriptors at end-exercise), affective (i.e., intensity of breathing-related anxiety during exercise, COPD self-efficacy, walking self-efficacy) and impact (i.e., activity-related dyspnea measured by the Baseline/Transition Dyspnea Index, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire dyspnea component, St. George's Respiratory Disease Questionnaire activity component) domains of dyspnea; functional performance (i.e., 6-minute walk, endurance shuttle walk); pulmonary function; and physiological measurements during constant work rate cycle exercise at 75% of the peak incremental work rate. Forty-one subjects completed the study: PR (n = 17) and CTRL (n = 24) groups were well matched for age, sex, body size and pulmonary function. There were no significant between-group differences in pre- to post-intervention changes in pulmonary function or physiological parameters during exercise. After PR versus CTRL, significant improvements were found in the affective and impact domains but not in the sensory-perceptual domain of dyspnea. In conclusion, clinically meaningful improvements in the affective and impact domains of dyspnea occurred in response to PR in the absence of consistent physiological training effects.
The aim of this study was to determine if components of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), a validated health status impairment instrument, had additional utility in identifying patients at risk for COPD in whom spirometry testing is appropriate. This study was part of the Canadian Obstructive Lung Disease prevalence study. Consenting participants ≥ 40 years of age were identified by random digit dialing. Smoking history, 8-item CAT scores, and post-bronchodilator spirometry were recorded for each. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables related to the presence of airway obstruction and a final logistic model was developed which best predicted COPD in this sample. Of the 801 individuals approached, 532 were included: 51 (9.6%) had COPD, the majority (92%) of whom fit GOLD I or II severity criteria. Items that correlated significantly with a COPD diagnosis included the CAT total score (p = 0.01) and its breathlessness (p < 0.0001) and phlegm (p = 0.001) components. The final logistic model included: age (<55 or ≥55 years), smoking status (current, former, never) and the CAT breathlessness score (ordinal scale 0-5). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for this model was 0.77, sensitivity was 77.6%, specificity was 64.9% and the positive likelihood ratio was 2.21. In summary, the triad of smoking history, age at least 55 years and the presence of exertional breathlessness were key elements of a simple model which had reliable measurement properties when tested in a random population. This may help identify patients at risk for COPD for whom spirometry testing is recommended.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.