Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Efficacy of standard rehabilitation in COPD outpatients with comorbidities

E. Crisafulli, P. Gorgone, B. Vagaggini, M. Pagani, G. Rossi, F. Costa, V. Guarriello, P. Paggiaro, A. Chetta, F. de Blasio, D. Olivieri, L.M. Fabbri, E.M. Clini
European Respiratory Journal 2010 36: 1042-1048; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00203809
E. Crisafulli
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Gorgone
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Vagaggini
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Pagani
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. Rossi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Costa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
V. Guarriello
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Paggiaro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Chetta
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. de Blasio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. Olivieri
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L.M. Fabbri
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
E.M. Clini
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: enrico.clini@unimore.it
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

A prospective study was performed to confirm the prevalence pattern of the most frequent co-morbidities and to evaluate whether characteristics of patients, specific comorbidities and increasing number of comorbidities are independently associated with poorer outcomes in a population with complex chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) submitted for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).

316 outpatients (mean±sd age 68±7 yrs) were studied. The outcomes recorded were comorbidities and proportion of patients with a pre-defined minimally significant change in exercise tolerance (6-min walk distance (6MWD) +54 m), breathlessness (Medical Research Council (MRC) score -1 point) and quality of life (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire -4 points).

62% of patients reported comorbidities; systemic hypertension (35%), dyslipidaemia (13%), diabetes (12%) and coronary disease (11%) were the most frequent. Of these patients, >45% improved over the minimum clinically important difference in all the outcomes. In a logistic regression model, baseline 6MWD (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–0.99; p = 0.001), MRC score (OR 12.88, 95% CI 6.89–24.00; p = 0.001) and arterial carbon dioxide tension (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00–1.15; p = 0.034) correlated with the proportion of patients who improved 6MWD and MRC, respectively. Presence of osteoporosis reduced the success rate in 6MWD (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.70; p = 0.006).

A substantial prevalence of comorbidities in COPD outpatients referred for PR was confirmed. Only the individual's disability and the presence of osteoporosis were independently associated with poorer rehabilitation outcomes.

  • Comorbidities
  • minimum clinically important difference
  • outcomes
  • rehabilitation

Comorbidities are usually defined as chronic clinical conditions associated with a disease process and are particularly relevant in elderly patients 1–4. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a common disease in the older population, is often associated with comorbidities 5–8, sharing systemic pathological features with some of them 6, 9. In this complex condition, comorbidities per se represent an important determinant of health-related quality of life 10, 11 and clinical outcomes 12.

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the only nonpharmacological and comprehensive intervention showing a marked efficacy on the individual's functions in symptomatic COPD patients of all grades of severity 13, 14.

In a retrospective study on a wide cohort of unselected complex COPD inpatients admitted to a single centre for a standard PR course, we were able to show the pattern of prevalence of comorbidities and their impact on rehabilitation outcomes 15. In particular, half of these patients reported at least one associated chronic disease, and the presence of combined metabolic and/or heart diseases reduced the PR success rate in terms of exercise tolerance and quality of life.

Therefore, our study has been designed prospectively to confirm the prevalence pattern of the most frequent comorbidities and to evaluate whether baseline characteristics of patients, specific comorbidities or increasing number of comorbidities are independently associated with poorer outcomes in a population of COPD patients referred to a standard outpatient PR programme.

METHODS

This observational trial was conducted prospectively at four outpatient clinics in Italy specialising in the rehabilitation of respiratory patients. Three out of the four facilities were located in university teaching hospitals (Pavullo, Pisa and Parma), whereas one (Naples) was located in a private hospital. E. Clini, at the Pavullo centre, acted as study coordinator. The institutional review board and ethical committee of each hospital approved the study.

Patients

All the symptomatic patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD were recruited consecutively over a 1-yr period (January 2008–January 2009) at the four centres. The primary diagnosis of COPD was made according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) definition and classification 16; an expert physician, qualified in respiratory medicine, coordinated the study at each centre and was in charge of confirming diagnoses and verifying exclusion criteria.

On admission, patients were excluded from this study if they had a diagnosis of asthma or any other pulmonary disease (either obstructive or restrictive). Furthermore, COPD patients were excluded if recovering from a recent exacerbation (in the preceding 4 weeks) or if unstable due to other conditions. Finally, patients with highly disabling neuromuscular conditions or cognitive impairments which might have interfered with the adherence to the physical rehabilitation programme, were also excluded. Figure 1 shows the study design as a flow diagram: pre-to-post comparisons were made in those patients completing PR.

Figure 1–
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1–

Study flow diagram. COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PR: pulmonary rehabilitation.

Comorbidities

Comorbid conditions were diagnosed according to the International Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care 17. The Charlson index 18, which assigns a score to each disease that is proportional to the disease-related risk of death from the individuals' self-reported comorbidities, computed on admission of each patient. The calculated Charlson index was not “adjusted for age” and did not compute COPD in the individual's score, as previously suggested 19. Diagnostic confirmation was indirectly assessed by means of chart review, biochemical data and specific procedures which were certified during the observation period.

Population in study was grouped into three categories as follows: 0 (absence of associated disease), 1 (presence of one associated disease), and ≥2 (presence of at least two associated diseases).

Finally, certain comorbidities were aggregated into groups, these were: heart disease (chronic heart failure (CHF) and coronary heart disease), metabolic disease (systemic hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia, i.e. metabolic syndrome), skeletal disease (osteoporosis and arthrosis) and other diseases (chronic disease involving kidney, liver, digestive system and cerebral or peripheral vascular diseases).

PR programme

Outpatients were referred to PR according to the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement and recommendations 13. Outpatients reached their rehabilitation clinic and performed activities during a half-day session. The rehabilitation programme included standard activities (peripheral limb training, educational sessions, chest physiotherapy, and psychological and nutritional counselling when indicated) and was similarly conducted at the four facilities. Physiotherapists involved in this programme were previously instructed to homogenise the type and duration of all activities. The programme consisted of 3-h sessions three times a week. A minimum of 21 sessions was the required number for programme completion; each session was conducted as previously reported 20.

Rehabilitation outcomes

Pre-to-post comparisons were made in all patients who completed the programme. The assessment at the end of the programme was performed after the 21st session was completed. Physiotherapists, unaware of the study purposes, were responsible for measurements.

The pre-defined study outcomes were: 6-min walk distance (6MWD), which was performed according to the standard and recommended method 21; perceived breathlessness recalled in a chronic situation as assessed by the 1–5-point modified Medical Research Council (MRC) scale 22; and perceived health-related quality of life assessed by means of the validated Italian version of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) 23. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) to assess PR efficacy was considered in these three outcomes; in particular, MCID was +54 m for 6MWD 24, -1 point for MRC 25 and -4 points for SGRQ 26. The percentage of patients who withdrew from PR was also recorded.

Other measurements

Lung function was measured at baseline by means of standard spirometry and arterial blood samples were taken for gas analysis. Anthropometry was assessed by means of the body mass index.

Statistics

Analysis were carried out using a statistical package (SPSS 8.0 for Windows; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and applied according to the current methodology 27. Qualitative and quantitative variables are presented as n (%) and mean±sd, respectively.

Presence or absence of comorbidities, evaluated for each single or aggregated disease, together with other demographic and baseline functional variables were first compared with pre-defined improvement (yes or no) of both 6MWD, MRC and SGRQ post-PR by a univariate analysis; comparisons were made by the usual methods, using the Chi-squared test for noncategorical variables. The significant variables were then entered in a multivariate logistic regression model (taking MCID improvement of 6MWD, MRC and SGRQ as the dependent variables) to define their predictive role. This multivariate model (data presented as exponential β, OR and 95% CI) has been adjusted for age, sex and Charlson index as potential confounders. Additional tests to exclude collinearity among the independent variables (variance inflaction factor <5; tolerance index close to 1; condition index <15) were performed. All results were considered to be statistically significant at a level of p<0.05.

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows the patients' contribution to the study in each centre. 11 out of the 327 eligible patients were excluded from the study due to the exclusion criteria, at a similar rate in the four centres. 97% of the recruited patients completed the programme and were included in the analysis. Completers performed 24±2 sessions over nine (range 7–9) consecutive weeks.

Main descriptive anthropometric and functional characteristics of patients are reported in table 1; no differences among centres were reported. In addition, COPD patients excluded from the study presented characteristics similar to those of included patients (data not shown). Most patients were male (74%) with moderate-to-severe airways obstruction (86%) according to the GOLD stages and definitions 16. The baseline level of physical disability and perceived function, as assessed by the outcome measures (6MWD, MRC and SGRQ), identify a typical COPD candidate for a PR outpatients programme; no differences were seen among comorbid categories for these values.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1– Anthropometric, demographic and functional baseline characteristics of the study cohort at admission for pulmonary rehabilitation

The n (%) of the single or aggregated comorbidities associated with COPD are illustrated in figure 2a and b, respectively. 62% of patients had at least one coexisting comorbidity. Systemic hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, coronary disease, CHF and osteoporosis ranked as the six most prevalent comorbidities (89% of total) in this COPD population. The other reported comorbidities were chronic hepatitis (4%), gastritis (3%), peripheral (2%) and cerebrovascular disease (1%), and renal failure (1%).

Figure 2–
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2–

Frequency distribution (% of total) of a) single and b) aggregated chronic comorbidities in the cohort. CHF: chronic heart failure. For a list of other diseases, refer to the Methods section.

Metabolic disease (55%) was the most frequent aggregated disease reported in our cohort; obesity was the most frequent phenotype (73%) in this condition.

47%, 71% and 71% of the study population improved beyond the MCID value for 6MWD, MRC and SGRQ, respectively. Withdrawal rate from PR (∼3% in all samples) was no different across the comorbidity categories (data not shown).

Results of the univariate analysis of the individuals’ variables at baseline comparing proportion of patients reaching MCID (yes or no) in each outcome after PR are shown in table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2– Univariate analysis of individuals’ variables at baseline comparing mean values and/or proportion of patients according to whether or not (yes or no, respectively) an improvement larger than the mimimum clinically important difference (MCID) was seen in each pulmonary rehabilitation outcome

Figure 3 shows results from the multiple logistic regression model for variables which were significant at the univariate analysis. Only the presence of osteoporosis was inversely related to MCID improvement in 6MWD (β -1.25; OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.70; p<0.01). The baseline level of both 6MWD (β -0.01; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–0.99; p = 0.001) and MRC (β 2.56; OR 12.90, 95% CI 6.89–24.00; p = 0.001) correlated significantly with the proportion of patients who improved 6MWD and MRC after PR, respectively. Arterial carbon dioxide tension (Pa,CO2) level at baseline was positively correlated (β 0.070; OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00–1.15; p<0.01) to the MCID improvement of MRC score. None of the significant variables in the univariate analysis significantly related to the MCID improvement of SGRQ in the multivariate analysis.

Figure 3–
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3–

Individuals’ factors entering the multivariate prediction analysis of improvement after pulmonary rehabiliation in the cohort of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Data are presented as β (○) and exponential β-OR (♦) and 95% CI (—–). 6MWD: 6-min walk distance; MRC: Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale; SGRQ: St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire; Pa,CO2: arterial carbon dioxide tension; Pa,O2: arterial oxygen tension. **: p<0.01; ***: p<0.001.

A linear regression model with δoutcome values as the dependent variables confirmed these findings (data not shown).

DISCUSSION

It is known that chronic diseases frequently associated with elderly COPD patients influence the individual's clinical outcomes 4–8, 12; rehabilitation, more than pharmacotherapy, represents a valid, comprehensive therapeutic approach for these patients 13, 14. This prospective trial was designed to observe the prevalence of comorbidities in this population of patients and to evaluate whether baseline characteristics of patients, specific comorbidities and increasing number of comorbidities may independently predict a poorer response to the current clinical model of outpatient rehabilitation.

As the first result, most (62% of cases) of the COPD patients referred for PR have at least one associated chronic comorbidity. 86% of them had a moderate-to-severe degree of airway obstruction (GOLD stage II and III), which is the population more likely to be treated at the outpatient level 13.

Although the prevalence of chronic comorbidities among COPD patients may vary according to the population and the method used to confirm diagnosis 6, 10, our findings are in line with those reported in a large population of outpatients in the USA 28. Some differences recorded among the neuromuscular diseases may arise from the a priori selection of candidates to PR. Indeed, patients with advanced and severely disabling musculoskeletal diseases and/or cognitive impairment, which may preclude adhesion to the programme, are more likely to be excluded.

The only robust data in the same area on a wide population (∼3,000 patients) recently indicated the presence of at least one self-reported comorbidity in 51% of the patients admitted 15, probably underestimating the current report of 62% due to the retrospective nature of that study.

The six most frequent coexisting diseases were systemic hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, coronary disease, CHF and osteoporosis, which together represented 89% of the cohort (fig. 2a) and have same similar features as observed in our retrospective study 15. Association within both metabolic or cardiac diseases were confirmed as the most prevalent pathologies aggregated to COPD (76% of total), over other reported combinations (fig. 2b). It is well known that metabolic and cardiac alterations are clinical conditions that, per se, worsen the prognosis in adult subjects 29, 30. The assessment of the relative contribution of these or other single or aggregated comorbidities to the long-term prognosis of these COPD patients was beyond the scope of our study.

Above all, we found that the proportion of patients who reported a significant change, according to MCID, was always >40% of the total population. This is in accordance with previously reported papers in similar settings 13.

The main finding of this study highlights the impact of chronic comorbidities and other individuals’ characteristics at baseline in response to PR.

Overall, it is noteworthy that individual comorbidities (either alone or in combination) did not preclude indication and/or effectiveness of a PR course. Indeed, patients reported <3% withdrawal from PR, with no difference across comorbid categories. This confirms the feasibility of our programme, which reproduces the internationally shared standards for management and costs 13, 20, 31, 32.

In contrast to our retrospective analysis 15, the coexistence of osteoporosis negatively predicts 6MWD improvement (fig. 3). It cannot be excluded that the populations are not comparable between the two studies. Nonetheless, coexisting osteoporosis is highly prevalent (∼25% in the COPD population, 39% in females) in a representative population of outpatients COPD 28, who are likely to be similar to those in the present study. Despite the fact that the prevalence of osteoporosis in our study is substantially lower (<10%), mainly due to the a priori exclusion from PR of the most disabled and noncompliant individuals, the clinical impact of this disease is known to reduce per se the quality of life and the physical function in the large population 33.

Therefore, it is likely that both direct bone frailty and/or associated muscle weakness, which typically occur in COPD patients referred to PR, might have enhanced the contribution of this phenotype to predicting response. Nonetheless, long-term abuse of corticosteroids and a specific drug-related myopathy 34 might also have determined significant bone damage, which is not only related to increased risk of fracture 35 but may even explain reduction in performance (walking capacity) during a course of PR. This has been confirmed in fragile elderly patients treated using physical rehabilitation after stroke 36, where disabling comorbidities, including osteoporosis and arthrosis, are the main determinants of poor physical recovery.

Among all the other valuable factors that may predict response to PR in our study, baseline level of 6MWD, MRC and Pa,CO2 significantly affect the multivariate regression equation (fig. 3). In all cases, the worse the baseline condition (lower 6MWD or higher MRC and Pa,CO2) the higher the proportion of patients gained the MCID outcome after PR. While a degree of improvement less than the MCID in those patients with a better baseline condition could be due to a possible ceiling effect, these findings inform us that inclusion of patients with poorer physical performance and lower gas exchange capacity (similarly to emphysema-type COPD) corresponds to a more elevated probability of improving their functional status independent on the presence of a “complex” comorbid phenotype 37.

Similar results have been already demonstrated in a smaller group of patients taken from a real-life setting and submitted for outpatient rehabilitation 38. Thus, these patients should not be definitively excluded from standard PR in the usual clinical setting.

Finally, PR outcomes in the present study were chosen as the strongest, easiest and best validated measures to represent the effectiveness of rehabilitation course in relation to patients with comorbidities. Overall, we cannot exclude that comorbidities would also have been associated with different outcomes (i.e. mood, workload exercise, functional status and healthcare utilisation). However, since this is a purely hypothesis-generating study, it is likely that a different impact of comorbidities (number and/or type) on different outcomes could not be expected a priori.

In conclusion, this prospective study confirms the high prevalence of associated chronic diseases in COPD outpatients referred to standard rehabilitation; the degree of functional disability as measured at baseline and the presence of coexisting osteoporosis (but not the increasing number of comorbidities) relate directly to a poorer outcome after PR in these patients.

As a practical message, the presence of comorbidities should not preclude per se access to and effectiveness of rehabilitation process in complex COPD.

Acknowledgments

We would like particularly to thank the physiotherapy staff who collaborated with the study in our four centres and cared for patients at their usual best. We also acknowledge S.A. Woods for her linguistic revision and editing of the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • Clinical Trial

    This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with clinical trial identifier number NCT00992498.

  • Statement of Interest

    None declared.

  • Received December 29, 2009.
  • Accepted April 4, 2010.
  • ©ERS 2010

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Van der Wel MC,
    2. Jansen RW,
    3. Bakx JC,
    4. et al
    . Non-cardiovascular co-morbidity in elderly patients with heart failure outnumbers cardiovascular co-morbidity. Eur J Heart Fail 2007; 9: 709–715.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Guralnik JM,
    2. LaCroix AZ,
    3. Abbott RD,
    4. et al
    . Maintaining mobility in late life. I. Demographic characteristics and chronic conditions. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137: 845–857.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Bellelli G,
    2. Guerini F,
    3. Bianchetti A,
    4. et al
    . Medical comorbidity and complexity of the rehabilitative procedures for older patients with functional impairments. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 2095–2096.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Kriegsman DM,
    2. Deeg DJ,
    3. Stalman WA
    . Comorbidity of somatic chronic diseases and decline in physical functioning; the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 55–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Mannino DM,
    2. Watt G,
    3. Hole D,
    4. et al
    . The natural history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2006; 27: 627–643.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Barnes PJ,
    2. Celli BR
    . Systemic manifestations and co-morbidities of COPD. Eur Respir J 2009; 33: 1165–1185.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Sevenoaks MJ,
    2. Stockley RA
    . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, inflammation and co-morbidity-a common inflammatory phenotype? Respir Res 2006; 7: 70–
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Chatila WM,
    2. Thomashow BM,
    3. Minai OA,
    4. et al
    . Comorbidities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2008; 5: 549–555.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Fabbri LM,
    2. Luppi F,
    3. Beghè B,
    4. et al
    . Complex chronic comorbidities of COPD. Eur Respir J 2008; 31: 204–212.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Van Manen JG,
    2. Bindels PJE,
    3. Dekker FW,
    4. et al
    . Added value of co-morbidity in predicting health-related quality of life in COPD patients. Respir Med 2001; 95: 496–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Wijnhoven HA,
    2. Kriegsman DM,
    3. Hesselink AE,
    4. et al
    . The influence of co-morbidity on health-related quality of life in asthma and COPD patients. Respir Med 2003; 97: 468–475.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Sin DD,
    2. Man SF
    . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2005; 2: 8–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Nici L,
    2. Donner C,
    3. Wouters E,
    4. et al
    . American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement on pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173: 1390–1413.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Ries AL,
    2. Bauldoff GS,
    3. Carlin BW,
    4. et al
    . Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Joint ACCP/AACVPR evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2007; 131: Suppl. 5, 4S–42S.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Crisafulli E,
    2. Costi S,
    3. Luppi F,
    4. et al
    . Role of comorbidities in a cohort of patients with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation. Thorax 2008; 63: 487–492.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GOLD)
    . Global strategy for the diagnosis, management and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. www.goldcopd.com/download.asp?intId=554 Date last accessed: 2003. Date last updated: 2009.
  14. ↵
    1. Classification Committee of WONCA
    . International Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care (ICHPPC)-3. 3rd Edn. Oxford, Oxford University Press,1983.
  15. ↵
    1. Charlson ME,
    2. Pompei P,
    3. Ales KL,
    4. et al
    . A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373–383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Marti S,
    2. Munoz X,
    3. Rios J,
    4. et al
    . Body weight and comorbidity predict mortality in COPD patients treated with oxygen therapy. Eur Respir J 2006; 27: 689–696.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Rossi G,
    2. Florini F,
    3. Romagnoli M,
    4. et al
    . Length and effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in outpatients with chronic airway obstruction. Chest 2005; 127: 105–109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories
    , ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 111–117.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Fletcher CM
    . Standardised questionnaire on respiratory symptoms: a statement prepared and approved by the MRC Committee on the aetiology of Chronic Bronchitis (MRC breathlessness score). Br Med J 1960; 2: 1665–
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Carone M,
    2. Bertolotti G,
    3. Anchisi F,
    4. et al
    . The St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ): Italian version. Rassegna Patol App Respir 1999; 14: 31–37.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Redelmeier DA,
    2. Bayoumi AM,
    3. Goldstein RS,
    4. et al
    . Interpreting small differences in functional status: the six minute walk test in chronic lung disease patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155: 1278–1282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. De Torres JP,
    2. Pinto-Plata V,
    3. Ingenito E,
    4. et al
    . Power of outcome measurements to detect clinically significant changes in pulmonary rehabilitation of patients with COPD. Chest 2002; 121: 1092–1098.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Jones PW
    . Health status measurement in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 2001; 56: 880–887.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Altman DG,
    2. Machin D,
    3. Bryant TN,
    4. et al
    . Statistics with Confidence. London, British Medical Journal, 2000.
  25. ↵
    1. Barr RG,
    2. Celli BR,
    3. Mannino DM,
    4. et al
    . Comorbidities, patient knowledge, and disease management in a national sample of patients with COPD. Am J Med 2009; 122: 348–355.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Yach D,
    2. Hawkes C,
    3. Gould CL,
    4. et al
    . The global burden of chronic diseases. Overcoming impediments to prevention and control. JAMA 2004; 291: 2616–2622.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Garcia-Aymerich J,
    2. Lange P,
    3. Benet M,
    4. et al
    . Regular physical activity modifies smoking-related lung function decline and reduces risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A population-based cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007; 175: 458–463.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Sewell L,
    2. Singh SJ,
    3. Williams J,
    4. et al
    . How long should outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation be? A randomised controlled trial of 4 weeks versus 7 weeks. Thorax 2006; 61: 767–771.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Troosters T,
    2. Gosselink R,
    3. Decramer M
    . Short- and long-term effects of outpatient rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Am J Med 2000; 109: 207–212.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Caporali R,
    2. Cimmino MA,
    3. Sarzi-Puttini P,
    4. et al
    . Comorbid conditions in the AMICA study patients: effects on the quality of life and drug prescriptions by general practitioners and specialists. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2005; 35 Suppl. 131–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Couillard A,
    2. Prefaut C
    . From muscle disuse to myopathy in COPD: potential contribution of oxidative stress. Eur Respir J 2005; 26: 703–719.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. De Vries F,
    2. Van Staa TP,
    3. Bracke MSGM,
    4. et al
    . Severity of obstructive airway disease and risk of osteoporotic fracture. Eur Respir J 2005; 25: 879–884.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Di Fazio I,
    2. Franzoni S,
    3. Frisoni GB,
    4. et al
    . Predictive role of single diseases and their combination on recovery of balance and gait in disabled elderly patients. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2006; 7: 208–211.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Clini EM,
    2. Crisafulli E,
    3. Costi S,
    4. et al
    . Effects of early inpatient rehabilitation after acute exacerbation of COPD. Respir Med 2009; 103: 1526–1531.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Vagaggini B,
    2. Costa F,
    3. Antonelli S,
    4. et al
    . Clinical predictors of the efficacy of a pulmonary rehabilitation programme in patients with COPD. Respir Med 2009; 103: 1224–1230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 36 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 36 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Efficacy of standard rehabilitation in COPD outpatients with comorbidities
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Efficacy of standard rehabilitation in COPD outpatients with comorbidities
E. Crisafulli, P. Gorgone, B. Vagaggini, M. Pagani, G. Rossi, F. Costa, V. Guarriello, P. Paggiaro, A. Chetta, F. de Blasio, D. Olivieri, L.M. Fabbri, E.M. Clini
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2010, 36 (5) 1042-1048; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00203809

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Efficacy of standard rehabilitation in COPD outpatients with comorbidities
E. Crisafulli, P. Gorgone, B. Vagaggini, M. Pagani, G. Rossi, F. Costa, V. Guarriello, P. Paggiaro, A. Chetta, F. de Blasio, D. Olivieri, L.M. Fabbri, E.M. Clini
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2010, 36 (5) 1042-1048; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00203809
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Pulmonary pharmacology and therapeutics
  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original Article

  • Lung volumes and survival in chronic lung allograft dysfunction
  • Umeclidinium in patients with COPD
  • EBUS-guided cryobiopsies in peripheral pulmonary lesions
Show more Original Article

COPD

  • Response to exercise training and withdrawal in COPD
  • A phase 2a crossover trial in COPD of the bronchodilator navafenterol
  • Long-term air pollution, road traffic noise and COPD
Show more COPD

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society