File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Does pulmonary rehabilitation give additional benefit over tiotropium therapy in primary care management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? Randomized controlled clinical trial in Hong Kong Chinese

TitleDoes pulmonary rehabilitation give additional benefit over tiotropium therapy in primary care management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? Randomized controlled clinical trial in Hong Kong Chinese
Authors
KeywordsChronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Hong Kong
Primary care
Pulmonary rehabilitation
Randomized controlled trial
Tiotropium
Issue Date2005
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd
Citation
Journal Of Clinical Pharmacy And Therapeutics, 2005, v. 30 n. 6, p. 567-573 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: To evaluate whether multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme (PRP) provides additional benefit over tiotropium therapy in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care. Design: A randomized controlled trial to analyse the difference in outcomes of COPD patients receiving tiotropium plus PRP vs. tiotropium treatment alone. Setting: Two primary care teaching clinics affiliated with a university which serves a population of 600 000. Participants: Fifty primary care COPD patients. Methods: Fifty subjects underwent spirometry and their status of COPD was confirmed by using the Vitalograph Gold Standard. They were then assessed by the 6-min walking distance (6MWD), Peak Visual Analogue Scale (Peak VAS) and Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ). All subjects were given tiotropium to optimize their treatment. After a 6-week period, half were randomized to the intervention group (i.e. receiving PRP), whereas the rest were randomized to control group which received only medication. Spirometry, 6MWD, Peak VAS and CRQ were performed in both groups at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 3 months. Outcomes: Spirometry, 6MWD, Peak VAS and CRQ. Results: Significant improvement (P < 0.05) was seen in 6MWD, symptoms of dyspnoea measured by Peak VAS and CRQ. The improvement was sustained at 3-month follow-up. However, no additional significant improvement was seen in the intervention group when compared with control. Conclusion: Tiotropium therapy has improved health outcomes in COPD patients in primary care settings. A 6 weekly PRP did not give any additional benefits in patients already given tiotropium. © 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/132447
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.833
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.638
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLindsay, Men_HK
dc.contributor.authorLee, Aen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChan, Ken_HK
dc.contributor.authorPoon, Pen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHan, LKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, WCWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, Sen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-28T09:24:41Z-
dc.date.available2011-03-28T09:24:41Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_HK
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Clinical Pharmacy And Therapeutics, 2005, v. 30 n. 6, p. 567-573en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0269-4727en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/132447-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate whether multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme (PRP) provides additional benefit over tiotropium therapy in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care. Design: A randomized controlled trial to analyse the difference in outcomes of COPD patients receiving tiotropium plus PRP vs. tiotropium treatment alone. Setting: Two primary care teaching clinics affiliated with a university which serves a population of 600 000. Participants: Fifty primary care COPD patients. Methods: Fifty subjects underwent spirometry and their status of COPD was confirmed by using the Vitalograph Gold Standard. They were then assessed by the 6-min walking distance (6MWD), Peak Visual Analogue Scale (Peak VAS) and Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ). All subjects were given tiotropium to optimize their treatment. After a 6-week period, half were randomized to the intervention group (i.e. receiving PRP), whereas the rest were randomized to control group which received only medication. Spirometry, 6MWD, Peak VAS and CRQ were performed in both groups at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 3 months. Outcomes: Spirometry, 6MWD, Peak VAS and CRQ. Results: Significant improvement (P < 0.05) was seen in 6MWD, symptoms of dyspnoea measured by Peak VAS and CRQ. The improvement was sustained at 3-month follow-up. However, no additional significant improvement was seen in the intervention group when compared with control. Conclusion: Tiotropium therapy has improved health outcomes in COPD patients in primary care settings. A 6 weekly PRP did not give any additional benefits in patients already given tiotropium. © 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeuticsen_HK
dc.subjectChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseen_HK
dc.subjectHong Kongen_HK
dc.subjectPrimary careen_HK
dc.subjectPulmonary rehabilitationen_HK
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trialen_HK
dc.subjectTiotropiumen_HK
dc.titleDoes pulmonary rehabilitation give additional benefit over tiotropium therapy in primary care management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? Randomized controlled clinical trial in Hong Kong Chineseen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailWong, WCW:wongwcw@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityWong, WCW=rp01457en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2710.2005.00686.xen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid16336289-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33644979327en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33644979327&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume30en_HK
dc.identifier.issue6en_HK
dc.identifier.spage567en_HK
dc.identifier.epage573en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1365-2710-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000234254900011-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLindsay, M=12782648200en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLee, A=8305464500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChan, K=26642931000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPoon, P=9336837000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHan, LK=12783025800en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, WCW=25230779000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, S=7404590959en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike419806-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats