Relationship between Peak Inspiratory Flow and Patient and Disease Characteristics in Individuals with COPD-A Systematic Scoping Review

Optimal delivery of medication via dry powder inhalers, the most commonly prescribed inhaler type, is dependent on a patient achieving a minimum level of inspiratory flow during inhalation. However, measurement of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) against the simulated resistance of a dry powder inhaler is not frequently performed in clinical practice due to time or equipment limitations. Therefore, defining which patient characteristics are associated with lower PIF is critically important to help clinicians optimize their inhaler choice through a more personalized approach to prescribing. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically evaluate patient and disease characteristics determining PIF in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant studies on PIF in patients with COPD published in English between January 2000 and May 2021. The quality of evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation checklist. Of 3382 citations retrieved, 35 publications were included in the review (nine scored as high quality, 13 as moderate, nine as low, and four as very low). Factors correlating with PIF in >70% of papers included both patient characteristics (lower PIF correlated with increased age, female gender, shorter height, decreased handgrip and inspiratory muscle strength, and certain comorbidities) and disease characteristics (lower PIF correlated with markers of lung hyperinflation, lower peak expiratory flow [PEF] and increased disease severity). Other factors correlating with adequate/optimal or improved PIF included education/counseling and exercise/inspiratory muscle training; impaired physical function and errors in inhalation technique/non-adherence were associated with low/suboptimal PIF. In conclusion, clinicians should measure PIF against the simulated resistance of a particular device wherever possible. However, as this often cannot be done due to lack of resources or time, the patient and disease characteristics that influence PIF, as identified in this review, can help clinicians to choose the most appropriate inhaler type for their patients

Can We Identify Subgroups of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain Based on Motor Variability? A Systematic Scoping Review

The identification of homogeneous subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), based on distinct patterns of motor control, could support the tailoring of therapy and improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation. The purpose of this review was (1) to assess if there are differences in motor variability between patients with CLBP and pain-free controls, as well as inter-individually among patients with CLBP, during the performance of functional tasks; and (2) to examine the relationship between motor variability and CLBP across time. A literature search was conducted on the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, including papers published any time up to September 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the search results, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted the data. Twenty-two cross-sectional and three longitudinal studies investigating motor variability during functional tasks were examined. There are differences in motor variability between patients with CLBP and pain-free controls during the performance of functional tasks, albeit with discrepant results between tasks and among studies. The longitudinal studies revealed the persistence of motor control changes following interventions, but the relationship between changes in motor variability and reduction in pain intensity was inconclusive. Based on the reviewed literature, no stratification of homogeneous subgroups into distinct patterns of motor variability in the CLBP population could be made. Studies diverged in methodologies and theoretical frameworks and in metrics used to assess and interpret motor variability. In the future, more large-sample studies, including longitudinal designs, are needed, with standardized metrics that quantify motor variability to fill the identified evidence gaps

The Effect of External Power Output and Its Reliability on Propulsion Technique Variables in Wheelchair Users With Spinal Cord Injury

The purpose of this study was to assess 1) how treadmill slope variance affected external power output (PO) and propulsion technique reliability; and 2) how PO is associated with propulsion technique. Eighteen individuals with spinal cord injury performed two wheelchair treadmill exercise blocks (0% and 1% treadmill slope, standardized velocity) twice on two separate days. PO, velocity, and 14 propulsion technique variables were measured. In a follow-up study, N = 29 performed wheelchair treadmill drag tests. Target and actual slope were documented and PO, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and smallest detectable differences (SDD) were calculated. Within and between visits, the reliability study ICCs were perfect for velocity (1.0), weak for PO (0.33-0.46), and acceptable (>0.70) for five (0% slope) and 10 (1% slope) propulsion technique variables, resulting in SDDs of 35-196%. Measured PO explained 56-90% of the variance in key propulsion technique variables. In the follow-up, PO ICCs were weak (0.43) and SDDs high. Bias between target and actual slope appeared random. In conclusion, PO variability accounts for 50-90% of the variability in propulsion technique variables when speed and wheelchair set-up are held constant. Therefore, small differences in PO between interventions could mask the effect of the interventions on propulsion technique

Motor learning outcomes of handrim wheelchair propulsion during active spinal cord injury rehabilitation in comparison with experienced wheelchair users

Purpose: To investigate changes in wheelchair propulsion technique and mechanical efficiency across first five weeks of active inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation and to compare the outcomes at discharge with experienced wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Methods: Eight individuals with recent spinal cord injury performed six weekly submaximal exercise tests. The first and last measurement additionally contained a wheelchair circuit and peak graded exercise test. Fifteen experienced individuals performed all above-mentioned tests on one occasion. Results: Mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique did not change during the five weeks of inpatient rehabilitation. Peak power output during peak graded test and performance time on the wheelchair circuit improved between the first and the last week. No difference in propulsion technique, peak power output, and performance time was found between the persons with a recent injury and the experienced group. Mechanical efficiency was higher after the correction for the difference in relative power output in the experienced group. Conclusion: The group with a recent injury did not improve mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique over the period of active rehabilitation, despite significant improvements on the wheelchair circuit and in work capacity. The only significant difference between the groups was found in mechanical efficiency. Implications for rehabilitation The lack of time-dependent changes in mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique in the group with a recent spinal cord injury, combined with the lack of differences in technique, work capacity and on the wheelchair circuit between the groups, suggest that important adaptations of motor learning may happen even earlier in rehabilitation and emphasize that the group in active rehabilitation was relatively skilled. Standardized observational analyses of handrim wheelchair propulsion abilities during early spinal cord injury rehabilitation provide detailed understanding of wheelchair technique, skill as well as wheelchair propulsion capacity. Measurement of external power output is critical to interpretation of gross efficiency, propulsion technique, and capacity. Wheelchair quality and body weight - next to wheelchair fitness and skill - require careful consideration both in early rehabilitation as well as in the chronic phase of spinal cord injury

Determining and Controlling External Power Output During Regular Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion

The use of a manual wheelchair is critical to 1% of the world's population. Human powered wheeled mobility research has considerably matured, which has led to improved research techniques becoming available over the last decades. To increase the understanding of wheeled mobility performance, monitoring, training, skill acquisition, and optimization of the wheelchair-user interface in rehabilitation, daily life, and sports, further standardization of measurement set-ups and analyses is required. A crucial stepping-stone is the accurate measurement and standardization of external power output (measured in Watts), which is pivotal for the interpretation and comparison of experiments aiming to improve rehabilitation practice, activities of daily living, and adaptive sports. The different methodologies and advantages of accurate power output determination during overground, treadmill, and ergometer-based testing are presented and discussed in detail. Overground propulsion provides the most externally valid mode for testing, but standardization can be troublesome. Treadmill propulsion is mechanically similar to overground propulsion, but turning and accelerating is not possible. An ergometer is the most constrained and standardization is relatively easy. The goal is to stimulate good practice and standardization to facilitate the further development of theory and its application among research facilities and applied clinical and sports sciences around the world

Changes in propulsion technique and shoulder complex loading following low-intensity wheelchair practice in novices

Background Up to 80% of wheelchair users are affected by shoulder pain. The Clinical Practice Guide- lines for preservation of upper limb function following spinal cord injury suggest that using a proper wheelchair propulsion technique could minimize the shoulder injury risk. Yet, the exact relationship between the wheelchair propulsion technique and shoulder load is not well understood. Objective This study aimed to examine the changes in shoulder loading accompanying the typical changes in propulsion technique following 80 min of low-intensity wheelchair practice distributed over 3 weeks. Methods Seven able-bodied participants performed the pre- and the post-test and 56 min of visual feedback-based low-intensity wheelchair propulsion practice. Kinematics and kinetics of propulsion technique were recorded during the pre- and the post-test. A musculoskeletal model was used to calculate muscle force and glenohumeral reaction force. Results Participants decreased push frequency (51 -> 36 pushes/min, p = 0.04) and increased contact angle (68 -> 94 degrees, p = 0.02) between the pre- and the post-test. The excursion of the upper arm increased, approaching significance (297 -> 342 mm, p = 0.06). Range of motion of the hand, trunk and shoulder remained unchanged. The mean glenohumeral reaction force per cycle decreased by 13%, approaching significance (268 -> 232 N, p = 0.06). Conclusions Despite homogenous changes in propulsion technique, the kinematic solution to the task varied among the participants. Participants exhibited two glenohumeral reaction force distribution patterns: 1) Two individuals developed high force at the onset of the push, leading to increased peak and mean glenohumeral forces 2) Five individuals distributed the force more evenly over the cycle, lowering both peak and mean glenohumeral forces

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy

Factors associated with health status and exacerbations in COPD maintenance therapy with dry powder inhalers

Funding Information: J.K. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim; grants and personal fees from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals and TEVA; grants from Mundipharma; personal fees from MSD and COVIS Pharma; and also holds 72.5% of shares in the General Practitioners Research Institute. H.W. has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, which is the financial and scientific partner of GPRI for the submitted study, and from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Chiesi for scientific projects in the area of COPD/asthma. S.B.-A. has received grants from TEVA, and personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi and Mylan. J.C.d.S. reports or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medinfar, Mundipharma and Sanofi. B.C. received honorarium from GSK and Sanofi. J.v.C., L.D., I.v.G.-P., I.v.d.H., Y.J., M.K., B.M., K.S., N.S., M.H., B.M. and M.T.L. were employed by General Practitioners Research Institute (GPRI) at the time of the study. In the past three years (2019–2021), GPRI conducted investigator- and sponsor-initiated research funded by non-commercial organizations, academic institutes, and pharmaceutical companies (including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Teva). R.D. has received grants and personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Chiesi, Focus Care, and Glenmark. R.G. has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK and Chiesi. E.D. holds 27.5% of shares in the General Practitioners Research Institute. M.G.P. receives grants from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim. A.G. and A.d.l.H. are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. F.L. received grants and personal fees from GSK, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini International, Novartis, Orion, and Trudell International, outside the submitted work. T.M. is an Assoicate Editor at npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. J.M. received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; and grants from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, and GSK, outside the submitted work. D.P. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Theravance and Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); grants from the British Lung Foundation, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, UK National Health Service, and AKL Research and Development Ltd; personal fees from Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Merck, Mundipharma, Airway Vista Secretariat, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, FIECON Ltd, Fieldwork International, OM Pharma SA, PeerVoice, Phadia AB, Spirosure Inc, Strategic North Limited, Synapse Research Management Partners S.L., Talos Health Solutions, and WebMD Global LLC; non-financial support from Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and Health Technology Assessment; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); and 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology. M.R.-R. receives grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, TEVA and BIAL. I.T. reports grants and personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini, Novartis, Chiesi and Elpen. O.U. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edmond Pharma, Chiesi and GSK; grants from Edmond Pharma; and personal fees from Napp, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Takeda, Cipla, COVIS, Novartis, Mereobiopharma, Orion, and Menarini. S.B.-A. and T.M. are Associate Editors at npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, and I.T. is Editor in Chief. These authors were not involved in the journal’s review of, or decisions related to, this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effect Of Variable Practice On The Motor Learning Process In Manual Wheelchair Propulsion

Handrim wheelchair propulsion is a cyclic skill that needs to be learned during rehabilitation. It has been suggested that a higher intra-individual variability benefits the motor learning process of wheelchair propulsion. PURPOSE: The goal of the current study was to determine the effect of variable practice, in the form of wheelchair basketball and skills training, on the motor learning process of wheelchair propulsion in novice able-bodied participants. Motor learning was operationalized as improvements in mechanical efficiency (ratio of power output and energy expenditure) and propulsion technique. METHODS: 11 Participants performed a pre-test, 7 practice sessions and a post-test. During the practice sessions, participants performed one-hour of variable practice, consisting of five wheelchair-skill tests and a 30 min wheelchair basketball game. Pre- and post-test were performed in a wheelchair on a motor-driven treadmill (1.11 m/s) at a relative power output of 0.23 W/kg. Energy consumption and the propulsion technique variables were calculated. RESULTS: Comparison of the pre- and the post-test showed that variable practice resulted in a 27% relative increase in mechanical efficiency (4.5 ± 0.6 vs. 5.7 ± 0.7%, p<0.001). With regard to propulsion technique, the push frequency reduced (65.4 ± 12.3 vs. 57.8 ± 8.6 pushes/min, p=0.011), the contact angle of the hand with the handrim increased (67.0 ± 8.6 vs. 77.6 ± 9.1°, <0.001) and the braking torque at (de)coupling reduced (-1.1 ± 0.8 vs. -0.5 ± 0.4 Nm, <0.001). No significant changes were found for the positive work (9.0 ± 1.8 vs. 9.7 ± 1.8 J, p=0.369) and peak torque per push (12.5 ± 2.2 vs. 11.6 ± 1.9 Nm, p=0.084) CONCLUSION: The present study showed that variable practice results in an increase in mechanical efficiency and an improvement in propulsion technique. Interestingly the large relative improvement in mechanical efficiency was concomitant with only moderate improvements in the propulsion technique, suggesting that other factors besides propulsion technique contributed to the higher efficiency. It may be that variable practice facilitated the exploitation of the dynamics of the task and improved coordination, which may have contributed to a less straining propulsio

Additional file 6: of Effects of variable practice on the motor learning outcomes in manual wheelchair propulsion

Complete data set. (XLS 106 kb