This scoping review summarized the evidence regarding the impact of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) on patients' health status beyond pulmonary function. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched. Prospective cohort studies assessing the health status of patients with COPD in a stable phase of the disease and after a follow-up period (where at least one AECOPD occurred) were included. An integrated assessment framework of health status (i.e., physiological functioning, complaints, functional impairment, quality of life) was used. Twenty-two studies were included. AECOPD acutely affected exercise tolerance, quadriceps muscle strength, physical activity levels, symptoms of dyspnoea and fatigue, and impact of the disease. Long-term effects on quadriceps muscle strength, symptoms of dyspnoea and depression, and quality of life were found. Repeated exacerbations negatively impacted the fat-free mass, levels of dyspnoea, impact of the disease and quality of life. Conflicting evidence was found regarding the impact of repeated exacerbations on exercise tolerance and physical activity levels. AECOPD have well-established acute and long-term adverse effects on health status beyond pulmonary function; nevertheless, the recovery trajectory and the impact of repeated exacerbations are still poorly studied. Further prospective research is recommended to draw firm conclusions on these aspects.

Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex and heterogenous disease that is associated with a range of respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms, which highly contribute to the daily burden of the disease. Symptoms burden remains high despite optimal bronchodilator therapy, but pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective intervention to improve patients’ symptoms. A comprehensive interdisciplinary approach within the framework of a PR program is warranted to tackle these complex symptoms and their consequences. Areas covered: This narrative review describes how symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue, cough, sputum, anxiety, depression, pain, sleep disturbances and cognitive decline arise in COPD and can contribute to several non-pulmonary manifestations of the disease. It also describes evidence of the effectiveness of interdisciplinary PR programs to counteract these symptoms. A literature search was performed on PubMed and Scopus between June and July 2020. Expert opinion: Respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms are highly prevalent, often not comprehensively assessed, and result in several extra-pulmonary manifestations of the disease (physical, emotional and social). Interdisciplinary PR programs can improve these negative manifestations through different pathways, contributing for an effective symptoms’ management. A thorough assessment of symptoms (beyond dyspnea) should be routinely performed, and may support the identification of treatable traits, allowing the tailoring of PR interventions and assessment of their real-life impact.

Interpreting clinical changes during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is challenging due to the absence of established minimal detectable (MDD) and important (MID) differences for most respiratory measures. This study established MDD and MID for respiratory measures in outpatients with AECOPD following pharmacological treatment. COPD assessment test (CAT), modified Borg scale (MBS), modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), computerised respiratory sounds and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) were collected within 24–48 hour of an AECOPD and after 45 days of pharmacological treatment. MID and MDD were calculated using anchor- (receiver operating characteristic and linear regression analysis) and distribution-based methods (effect size, SEM, 0.5*SD and MDC95) and pooled using Meta XL. Forty-four outpatients with AECOPD (31♂; 68.2 ± 9.1 years; FEV₁ 51.1 ± 20.3%predicted) participated. Significant correlations with CAT were found for the MBS (r = 0.34), mMRC (r = 0.39) and FEV₁ (r = 0.33), resulting in MIDs of 0.8, 0.5–0.6 and 0.03L, respectively. MDD of 0.5–1.4 (MBS), 0.4–1.2 (mMRC), 0.10–0.28L (FEV₁), 3.6–10.1% (FEV₁%predicted), 0.9–2.4% (SpO₂), 0.7–1.9 (number of inspiratory crackles), 1.1–4.5 (number of expiratory crackles), 7.1–25.8% (inspiratory wheeze rate) and 11.8–63.0% (expiratory wheeze rate) were found. Pooled data of MID/MDD showed that improvements of 0.9 for the MBS, 0.6 for the mMRC, 0.15L for the FEV₁, 7.6% for the FEV₁%predicted, 1.5% for the SpO₂, 1.1 for the inspiratory and 2.4 for the number of expiratory number of crackles, 14.1% for the inspiratory and 32.5% for the expiratory wheeze rate are meaningful following an AECOPD managed with pharmacological treatment on an outpatient basis.

Background and Purpose: The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), the Mini-BESTest, and the Brief-BESTest are useful tests to assess balance; however, their clinimetric properties have not been studied well in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study compared the validity and relative ability of the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest to identify fall status in older adults with T2D. Methods: This study involved a cross-sectional design. Sixty-six older adults with T2D (75 ± 7.6 years) were included and asked to report the number of falls during the previous 12 months and to complete the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale. The BBS and the BESTest were administered, and the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest scores were computed based on the BESTest performance. Receiver operating characteristics were used to assess the ability of each balance test to differentiate between participants with and without a history of falls. Results: The 4 balance tests were able to identify fall status (areas under the curve = 0.74-0.76), with similar sensitivity (60%-67%) and specificity (71%-76%). Conclusions: The 4 balance tests were able to differentiate between older adults with T2D with and without a history of falls. As the BBS and the BESTest require longer application time, the Brief-BESTest may be an appropriate choice to use in clinical practice to detect fall risk.

And objectives: This systematic review summarized the evidence on the effects (benefits and harms) of pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). We included randomized controlled trials comparing pulmonary rehabilitation to either active interventions or usual care regardless of setting. In March 2022, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Web of Sciences, and trial registries. Record screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two reviewers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. This systematic review included 18 studies (n = 1465), involving a combination of mixed settings (8 studies), inpatient settings (8 studies), and outpatient settings (2 studies). The studies were at high risk of performance, detection, and reporting biases. Compared to usual care, pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves AECOPD-related hospital readmissions (relative risk 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence) and cardiovascular submaximal capacity (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.99; moderate certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence suggests that pulmonary rehabilitation may be beneficial on re-exacerbations, dyspnoea, and impact of disease. The evidence regarding the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on health-related quality of life and mortality is very uncertain (very low certainty evidence). Our results indicate that pulmonary rehabilitation may be an effective treatment option for patients with AECOPD, irrespective of setting. Our certainty in this evidence base was limited due to small studies, heterogeneous rehabilitation programs, numerous methodological weaknesses, and a poor reporting of findings that were inconsistent with each other. Trialists should adhere to the latest reporting standards to strengthen this body of evidence. The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/amgbz/).