Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a complex and heterogeneous disease, with pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations, which leads to the need to personalize the assessment and treatment of these patients. The latest updates of national and international guidelines for the management of COPD reveal the importance of respiratory rehabilitation (RR) and its role in improving symptoms, quality of life, and psychosocial sphere of patients. Within RR, the inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has received special interest, showing benefits in maximum inspiratory pressure, perception of well-being, and health status in patients with chronic heart disease, respiratory diseases, and dyspnea during exercise. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy of IMT in COPD patients through the use of inspiratory muscle training devices, compared with respiratory rehabilitation programs without inspiratory muscle training. In the last years, many mechanical devices focused on inspiratory muscle training have been developed, some of them, such as the AirOFit PRO™, PowerBreath^®, or FeelBreathe^®, have shown clear benefits. The active search for candidate patients to undergo the RR program with inspiratory muscle training using this type of device in COPD patients represents an advance in the treatment of this disease, with direct benefits on the quality of life of the patients. In this article, we review the available evidence on IMT in these patients and describe the different devices used for it.

The prognostic value of p53 and c‐erbB‐2 immunostaining and preoperative serum levels of CEA and CA125 was investigated in a prospective multicentric study including 465 consecutive non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with resectable tumors. Four end‐points were used: lung cancer death, first relapse (either locoregional or metastasis), loco‐regional recurrence and metastasis development. Standard statistical survival methods (Kaplan‐Meier and Cox regression) were used. The specificity of the prognostic effect across different types of tumors was also explored, as had been planned in advance. Our results showed, once again, that pathological T and N classifications continue to be the strongest predictors regarding either relapse or mortality. Three of the studied markers seemed to add further useful information, however, but in a more specific context. For example, increased CEA concentration defined a higher risk population among adenocarcinomas but not among people with squamous tumors; and p53 overexpression implied a worse prognosis mainly in patients with well differentiated tumors. The analysis of type of relapse proved to be very informative. Thus, CA125 level was associated with a worse prognosis mainly related with metastasis development. Another interesting result was the influence of smoking, which showed a clear dose‐response relationship with the probability of metastasis. For future studies, we recommend the inclusion of different endpoints, namely considering the relationship of markers with the type of relapse involved in lung‐cancer recurrence. They can add useful information regarding the complex nature of prognosis.

According to the current clinical practice guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the addition of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to long-acting β2 agonist therapy is recommended in patients with moderate-to-severe disease and an increased risk of exacerbations. However, ICS are largely overprescribed in clinical practice, and most patients are unlikely to benefit from long-term ICS therapy. Evidence from recent randomized-controlled trials supports the hypothesis that ICS can be safely and effectively discontinued in patients with stable COPD and in whom ICS therapy may not be indicated, without detrimental effects on lung function, health status, or risk of exacerbations. This article summarizes the evidence supporting the discontinuation of ICS therapy, and proposes an algorithm for the implementation of ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD in clinical practice. Given the increased risk of potentially serious adverse effects and complications with ICS therapy (including pneumonia), the use of ICS should be limited to the minority of patients in whom the treatment effects outweigh the risks.

Background: Patients with chronic respiratory disease have low exercise capacity and limited physical activity (PA), which is associated with worsening dyspnoea, exacerbations, and quality of life. The literature regarding patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (non-CF BQ) is scarce, especially regarding the use of cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) to assess the effects of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation programmes (HPRP). The aim was to evaluate the effect of an HPRP on the exercise capacity of non-CF BQ patients using CPET and PA using an accelerometer. Methods: Our study describes a non-pharmacological clinical trial in non-CF BQ patients at the Virgen Macarena University Hospital (Seville, Spain). The patients were randomised into two groups: a control group (CG), which received general advice on PA and educational measures, and the intervention group (IG), which received a specific 8-week HPRP with two hospital sessions. The variables included were those collected in the CPET, the accelerometer, and others such as a 6 min walking test (6MWT) and dyspnoea. The data were collected at baseline and at an 8-week follow-up. Results: After the intervention, there was a significant increase in peak VO₂ in the IG, which was not evidenced in the GC (IG 66.8 ± 15.5 mL/min p = 0.001 vs. CG 62.2 ± 14.14 mL/min, p = 0.30). As well, dyspnoea according to the mMRC (modified Medical Research Council), improved significantly in IG (2.19 ± 0.57 to 1.72 ± 0.05, p = 0.047) vs. CG (2.07 ± 0.7 to 2.13 ± 0.64, p = 0.36). In addition, differences between the groups in walked distance (IG 451.19 ± 67.99 m, p = 0.001 vs. CG 433.13 ± 75.88 m, p = 0.981) and in physical activity (IG 6591 ± 3482 steps, p = 0.007 vs. CG 4824 ± 3113 steps, p = 0.943) were found. Conclusion: Participation in a specific HPRP improves exercise capacity, dyspnoea, walked distance, and PA in non-CF BQ patients.