Predictors of referral to pulmonary rehabilitation from UK primary care

Background: A large proportion of people with COPD are not referred to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) despite its proven benefits. No previous studies have examined predictors of referral to PR.Objective: To determine the characteristics of people with COPD associated with referral to PR.Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of a primary care cohort of 82,696 Welsh people with COPD generated as part of a UK national audit of COPD care. Data represent care received by patients as of 31/03/2017. Referral to PR was defined as any code in the patient record indicating referral to PR in the last 3 years. Potential predictors of referral to PR were chosen based on clinical judgement and data availability. Independent predictors of PR referral were determined using backward stepwise mixed-effects logistic regression with a random effect for practice. Variables assessed were: age, gender, deprivation, MRC recorded in past year, MRC grade, smoking status recorded in past year, smoking status, number of exacerbations in past year, inhaled therapy prescription, influenza vaccination, and comorbidities of diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, lung cancer, asthma, bronchiectasis, depression, anxiety, severe mental illness, osteoporosis, and painful condition.Results: A total of 13,297 people (16%) with COPD were referred from primary care for PR. Patients with a comorbidity of bronchiectasis or depression, MRC recorded in the last year, higher MRC grade, more exacerbations in the last year, a greater level of inhaled therapy, an influenza vaccination, or were an ex-smoker had significantly higher odds of referral to PR. Patients that were older, female, more deprived, or had a comorbidity of diabetes, asthma, or painful condition had significantly lower odds of referral to PR.Conclusion: Generally appropriate patients are being prioritised for PR referral; however, it is concerning that women, current smokers, and more deprived patients appear to have lower odds of referral.</div

24-hour accelerometry in COPD: Exploring physical activity, sedentary behavior, sleep and clinical characteristics

Background: The constructs and interdependency of physical behaviors are not well described and the complexity of physical activity (PA) data analysis remains unexplored in COPD. This study examined the interrelationships of 24-hour physical behaviors and investigated their associations with participant characteristics for individuals with mild–moderate airflow obstruction and healthy control subjects. Patients and methods: Vigorous PA (VPA), moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), light PA (LPA), stationary time (ST), average movement intensity (vector magnitude counts per minute), and sleep duration for 109 individuals with COPD and 135 healthy controls were obtained by wrist-worn accelerometry. Principal components analysis (PCA) examined interrelationships of physical behaviors to identify distinct behavioral constructs. Using the PCA component loadings, linear regressions examined associations with participant (+, positive correlation; -, negative correlation), and were compared between COPD and healthy control groups. Results: For both groups PCA revealed ST, LPA, and average movement intensity as distinct behavioral constructs to MVPA and VPA, labeled “low-intensity movement” and “high-intensity movement,” respectively. Sleep was also found to be its own distinct behavioral construct. Results from linear regressions supported the identification of distinct behavioral constructs from PCA. In COPD, low-intensity movement was associated with limitations with mobility (-), daily activities (-), health status (+), and body mass index (BMI) (-) independent of high-intensity movement and sleep. High-intensity movement was associated with age (-) and self-care limitations (-) independent of low-intensity movement and sleep. Sleep was associated with gender (0= female, 1= male; [-]), lung function (-), and percentage body fat (+) independent of low-intensity and high-intensity movement. Conclusion: Distinct behavioral constructs comprising the 24-hour day were identified as “low-intensity movement,” “high-intensity movement,” and “sleep” with each construct independently associated with different participant characteristics. Future research should determine whether modifying these behaviors improves health outcomes in COPD

CELEB trial: Comparative Effectiveness of Lung volume reduction surgery for Emphysema and Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with valve placement: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although lung volume reduction surgery and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves have both been shown to improve lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life in appropriately selected patients with emphysema, there are no direct comparison data between the two procedures to inform clinical decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe the protocol of the CELEB study, a randomised controlled trial which will compare outcomes at 1 year between the two procedures, using a composite disease severity measure, the iBODE score, which includes body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoeaand exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval to conduct the study has been obtained from the Fulham Research Ethics Committee, London (16/LO/0286). The outcome of this trial will provide information to guide treatment choices in this population and will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will also disseminate the main results to all participants in a letter. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN19684749; Pre-results

The Responsiveness of Exercise Tests in COPD

BackgroundCOPD is characterized by reduced exercise tolerance, and improving physical performance is an important therapeutic goal. A variety of exercise tests commonly are used to assess exercise tolerance, including laboratory and field-based tests. The responsiveness of these tests to common COPD interventions is yet to be compared, but the results may inform test selection in clinical and research settings.Research questionWhat exercise test possesses the greatest sensitivity to change from before to after intervention in patients with COPD?Study design and methodsOne hundred fifty-four patients with symptomatic COPD were recruited and randomized (2:1:1) to 6 weeks of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), or usual care. Before and after intervention, participants performed a ramp-incremental cycle exercise test (ICET) and constant work rate cycle test (CWRCT), incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT), 6-min walk test (6MWT), and 4-m gait speed test.ResultsOne hundred three participants (mean ± SD age, 67 ± 8 years; 75 male participants [73%]; FEV1, 50.6 ± 16.8% predicted) completed the study. Significant improvements in the ICET, CWRCT, ISWT, ESWT, and 6MWT results were observed after PR (P InterpretationThe ESWT and CWRCT seemed to be the most responsive exercise test protocols to LAMA and PR therapy. The magnitude of change was much greater after a program of rehabilitation compared with bronchodilator therapy.Trial registryISRCTN; No. 64759523

Collaboration between explainable artificial intelligence and pulmonologists improves the accuracy of pulmonary function test interpretation

Background Few studies have investigated the collaborative potential between artificial intelligence (AI) and pulmonologists for diagnosing pulmonary disease. We hypothesised that the collaboration between a pulmonologist and AI with explanations (explainable AI (XAI)) is superior in diagnostic interpretation of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) than the pulmonologist without support. Methods The study was conducted in two phases, a monocentre study (phase 1) and a multicentre intervention study (phase 2). Each phase utilised two different sets of 24 PFT reports of patients with a clinically validated gold standard diagnosis. Each PFT was interpreted without (control) and with XAI’s suggestions (intervention). Pulmonologists provided a differential diagnosis consisting of a preferential diagnosis and optionally up to three additional diagnoses. The primary end-point compared accuracy of preferential and additional diagnoses between control and intervention. Secondary end-points were the number of diagnoses in differential diagnosis, diagnostic confidence and inter-rater agreement. We also analysed how XAI influenced pulmonologists’ decisions. Results In phase 1 (n=16 pulmonologists), mean preferential and differential diagnostic accuracy significantly increased by 10.4% and 9.4%, respectively, between control and intervention (p<0.001). Improvements were somewhat lower but highly significant (p<0.0001) in phase 2 (5.4% and 8.7%, respectively; n=62 pulmonologists). In both phases, the number of diagnoses in the differential diagnosis did not reduce, but diagnostic confidence and inter-rater agreement significantly increased during intervention. Pulmonologists updated their decisions with XAI’s feedback and consistently improved their baseline performance if AI provided correct predictions. Conclusion A collaboration between a pulmonologist and XAI is better at interpreting PFTs than individual pulmonologists reading without XAI support or XAI alone

Lung volume reduction surgery versus endobronchial valves: a randomised controlled trial

Background Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves can improve outcomes in appropriately selected patients with emphysema. However, no direct comparison data exist to inform clinical decision making in people who appear suitable for both procedures. Our aim was to investigate whether LVRS produces superior health outcomes when compared with BLVR at 12 months. Methods This multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group trial randomised patients from five UK hospitals, who were suitable for a targeted lung volume reduction procedure, to either LVRS or BLVR and compared outcomes at 1 year using the i-BODE score. This composite disease severity measure includes body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea and exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test). The researchers responsible for collecting outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. All outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Results 88 participants (48% female, mean±SD age 64.6±7.7 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted 31.0±7.9%) were recruited at five specialist centres across the UK and randomised to either LVRS (n=41) or BLVR (n=47). At 12 months follow-up, the complete i-BODE was available in 49 participants (21 LVRS/28 BLVR). Neither improvement in the i-BODE score (LVRS −1.10±1.44 versus BLVR −0.82±1.61; p=0.54) nor in its individual components differed between groups. Both treatments produced similar improvements in gas trapping (residual volume percent predicted: LVRS −36.1% (95% CI −54.6- −10%) versus BLVR −30.1% (95% CI −53.7- −9%); p=0.81). There was one death in each treatment arm. Conclusion Our findings do not support the hypothesis that LVRS is a substantially superior treatment to BLVR in individuals who are suitable for both treatments