ObjectiveThis study investigates the feasibility of delivering inspiratory muscle training as part of the physical therapy treatment for patients with post-COVID dyspnoea.DesignMixed-methods pilot study.Subjects/patientsPatients with complaints of dyspnoea after COVID-19 infection and their physical therapists.MethodsThe Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers conducted this study. Participants performed daily inspiratory muscle training at home for 6 weeks, consisting of 30 repetitions against a pre-set resistance. The primary outcome was feasibility assessed as acceptability, safety, adherence and patient- and professional experience obtained through diaries and semi-structured interviews. The secondary outcome was maximal inspiratory pressure.ResultsSixteen patients participated. Nine patients and 2 physical therapists partook in semi-structured interviews. Two patients dropped out before initiating the training. Adherence was 73.7%, and no adverse events occurred. Protocol deviations occurred in 29.7% of the sessions. Maximal inspiratory pressure changed from 84.7% of predicted at baseline to 111.3% at follow-up. Qualitative analysis identified barriers to training: ‘Getting acquainted with the training material’ and ‘Finding the right schedule’. Facilitators were: ‘Support from physical therapists’ and ‘Experiencing improvements’.ConclusionDelivering inspiratory muscle training to patients with post-COVID dyspnoea seems feasible. Patients valued the simplicity of the intervention and reported perceived improvements. However, the intervention should be carefully supervised, and training parameters adjusted to individual needs and capacity.
Introduction: Besides dyspnoea and cough, patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or sarcoidosis may experience distressing non-respiratory symptoms, such as fatigue or muscle weakness. However, whether and to what extent symptom burden differs between patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and individuals without respiratory disease remains currently unknown. Objectives: To study the respiratory and non-respiratory burden of multiple symptoms in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and to compare the symptom burden with individuals without impaired spirometric values, FVC and FEV1 (controls). Methods: Demographics and symptoms were assessed in 59 patients with IPF, 60 patients with sarcoidosis and 118 controls (age ≥18 years). Patients with either condition were matched to controls by sex and age. Severity of 14 symptoms was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale. Results: 44 patients with IPF (77.3% male; age 70.6±5.5 years) and 44 matched controls, and 45 patients with sarcoidosis (48.9% male; age 58.1±8.6 year) and 45 matched controls were analyzed. Patients with IPF scored higher on 11 symptoms compared to controls (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, cough, fatigue, muscle weakness and insomnia. Patients with sarcoidosis scored higher on all 14 symptoms (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, fatigue, cough, muscle weakness, insomnia, pain, itch, thirst, micturition (night, day). Conclusions: Generally, respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden is significantly higher in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis compared to controls. This emphasizes the importance of awareness for respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden in IPF or sarcoidosis and the need for additional research to study the underlying mechanisms and subsequent interventions.
QUESTIONS: What are the perceived reasons for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to be physically active or sedentary? Are those reasons related to the actual measured level of physical activity?DESIGN: A mixed-methods study combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.PARTICIPANTS: People with mild to very severe COPD.OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants underwent a semi-structured interview and physical activity was measured by a triaxial accelerometer worn for one week.RESULTS: Of 118 enrolled, 115 participants (68% male, mean age 65 years, mean FEV1 57% predicted, mean modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score 1.4) completed the study. The most frequently reported reason to be physically active was health benefits, followed by enjoyment, continuation of an active lifestyle from the past, and functional reasons. The most frequently reported reason to be sedentary was the weather, followed by health problems, and lack of intrinsic motivation. Mean steps per day ranged between 236 and 18 433 steps. A high physical activity level was related to enjoyment and self-efficacy for physical activity. A low physical activity level was related to the weather influencing health, financial constraints, health and shame.CONCLUSION: We identified important facilitators to being physically active and barriers that could be amenable to change. Furthermore, we distinguished three important potential strategies for increasing physical activity in sedentary people with COPD, namely reducing barriers and increasing insight into health benefits, tailoring type of activity, and improvement of self-efficacy.
LINK
