Exercise training is recommended for non-cystic fibrosis (CF) bronchiectasis, but the long-term effects are unclear. This randomised controlled trial aimed to determine the effects of exercise training and review of airway clearance therapy (ACT) on exercise capacity, health related quality of life (HRQOL) and the incidence of acute exacerbations in people with non-CF bronchiectasis.

Background Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are not severely hypoxaemic at rest may experience significant breathlessness on exertion, and ambulatory oxygen is often prescribed in this circumstance despite a lack of conclusive evidence for benefit. This study aimed to determine whether such patients benefit from domiciliary ambulatory oxygen and, if so, which factors may be associated with benefit. Methods This was a 12 week, parallel, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of cylinder air versus cylinder oxygen, provided at 6 l/min intranasally, for use during any activity provoking breathlessness. Patients underwent baseline measurements of arterial blood gases and lung function. Outcome measures assessed dyspnoea, health-related quality of life, mood disturbance, functional status and cylinder utilisation. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, p≤0.05. Results 143 subjects (44 female), mean±SD age 71.8±9.8 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁)1.16±0.51 lites, Pao₂ 9.5±1.1 kPa (71.4±8.5 mm Hg) were randomised, including 50 patients with exertional desaturation to ≤88%. No significant differences in any outcome were found between groups receiving air or oxygen. Statistically significant but clinically small improvements in dyspnoea and depression were observed in the whole study group over the 12 weeks of the study. Conclusion In breathless patients with COPD who do not have severe resting hypoxaemia, domiciliary ambulatory oxygen confers no benefits in terms of dyspnoea, quality of life or function. Exertional desaturation is not predictive of outcome. Intranasal gas (either air or oxygen) may provide a placebo benefit. Clinical trial number ACTRN12605000457640.

Rationale Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease but is delivered to <5% of eligible individuals. This study investigated whether home-based telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic respiratory disease. Methods A multicentre randomised controlled trial with assessor blinding, powered for equivalence was undertaken. Individuals with a chronic respiratory disease referred to pulmonary rehabilitation at four participating sites (one rural) were eligible and randomised using concealed allocation to pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation. Both programmes were two times per week for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire Dyspnoea (CRQ-D) domain at end-rehabilitation, with a prespecified equivalence margin of 2.5 points. Follow-up was at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, symptoms, self-efficacy and psychological well-being. Results 142 participants were randomised to pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation with 96% and 97% included in the intention-to-treat analysis, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups for any outcome at either time point. Both groups achieved meaningful improvement in dyspnoea and exercise capacity at end-rehabilitation. However, we were unable to confirm equivalence of telerehabilitation for the primary outcome ΔCRQ-D at end-rehabilitation (mean difference (MD) (95% CI) −1 point (−3 to 1)), and inferiority of telerehabilitation could not be excluded at either time point (12-month follow-up: MD −1 point (95% CI −4 to 1)). At end-rehabilitation, telerehabilitation demonstrated equivalence for 6-minute walk distance (MD −6 m, 95% CI −26 to 15) with possibly superiority of telerehabilitation at 12 months (MD 14 m, 95% CI −10 to 38). Conclusion telerehabilitation may not be equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for all outcomes, but is safe and achieves clinically meaningful benefits. When centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation is not available, telerehabilitation may provide an alternative programme model. Trial registration number ACtelerehabilitationN12616000360415.

Background: Remote in-home monitoring (RM) of symptoms and physiological variables may allow early detection and treatment of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is unclear whether RM improves patient outcomes or healthcare resource utilization. This study determined whether RM is feasible in patients with COPD and if RM reduces hospital admissions or length of stay (LOS) or improves health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Subjects and Methods: Forty-four patients were randomized to standard best practice care (SBP) ( n =22) or SBP+RM ( n =22). RM involved daily recording of physiological variables, symptoms, and medication usage. Results: There were no differences (mean±SD, SBP versus SBP+RM) in age (68±8 versus 70±9 years), gender (male:female 10:12 in both groups), or previous computer familiarity (59% versus 50%) between groups. The SBP group had a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (0.66±0.24 versus 0.91±0.34 L, p <0.01) and more current smokers (six versus none, p <0.05). There were no differences in number of COPD-related admissions/year (1.5±1.8 versus 1.3±1.7, p =0.76), COPD-related LOS days/year (15.6±19.4 versus 11.4±19.6, p =0.66), total admissions/year (2.2±2.1 versus 2.0±2.3, p =0.86), total LOS days/year (22.1±29.9 versus 21.6±30.4, p =0.88), or HRQOL between the two groups. Conclusions: The addition of RM to SBP was feasible but did not reduce healthcare utilization or improve quality of life in this group of patients already receiving comprehensive respiratory care.