On behalf of Lung Foundation Australia and the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

Australia and New Zealand

Pulmonary Rehabilitation

CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

February 2017

Alison, J.A., McKeough, Z.J., Johnston, K., McNamara, R.J., Spencer, L.M., Jenkins, S.C., Hill, C.J., McDonald,
V.M., Frith, P., Cafarella, P., Brooke, M., Cameron-Tucker, H.L., Candy, S., Cecins, N., Chan, A.S.L., Dale,
M., Dowman, L.M., Granger, C., Halloran, S., Jung, P., Lee, A., Leung, R., Matulik, T., Osadnik, C., Roberts,
M., Walsh, J., Wootton, S., Holland, A.E. On behalf of the Lung Foundation Australia and the Thoracic
Society of Australia and New Zealand (2017) Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Guidelines. Respirology, doi: 10.1111/resp.13025

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/resp.13025/full
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

authors
Prof Jennifer A. Alison*: Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney; Allied Health Professorial Unit,
Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW
Dr Zoe J. McKeough*: Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW
Dr Kylie Johnston*: Physiotherapy Discipline, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, SA; International
Centre for Allied Health Evidence, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, SA
Dr Renae J. McNamara*: Department of Physiotherapy, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW; Department of Respiratory
and Sleep Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW
Dr Lissa M. Spencer*: Department of Physiotherapy, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW
Dr Sue C. Jenkins*: Physiotherapy Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Institute for Respiratory Health,
Perth, WA; School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA
Dr Catherine J. Hill*: Department of Physiotherapy, Austin Hospital, Melbourne Institute for Breathing and Sleep,
Melbourne, VIC
Prof Vanessa M. McDonald*: Priority Research Centre for Healthy Lungs, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Newcastle, NSW
Prof Peter Frith*: School of Medicine, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA; School of Health Sciences, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, SA
Paul Cafarella*: Department of Respiratory Medicine, Repatriation General Hospital, SA; School of Health Sciences,
Flinders University, SA
Michelle Brooke: Physiotherapist, Respiratory Coordinated Care Program, Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital, Nowra, NSW
Dr Helen L. Cameron-Tucker: Physiotherapy Services, Royal Hobart Hospital and Centre of Research Excellence for Chronic Respiratory
Disease and Lung Aging, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania
Sarah Candy: Pulmonary Rehabilitation Coordinator, Department of Respiratory, Counties Manukau Health, Auckland, NZ
Nola Cecins: Department of Physiotherapy, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA
Dr Andrew S.L. Chan: Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW;
Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, NSW
Dr Marita Dale: Department of Physiotherapy, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, NSW
Leona M. Dowman: Exercise Physiologist, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, VIC
Dr Catherine Granger: Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, VIC; Department of Physiotherapy, Royal
Melbourne Hospital, VIC
Simon Halloran: Physiotherapist and Program Director, LungSmart Physiotherapy and Pulmonary Rehabilitation,
Bundaberg, QLD
Peter Jung: Department of Physiotherapy, Northern Health, Melbourne, VIC
Dr Annemarie Lee: La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC
Dr Regina Leung: Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Repatriation General Hospital Sydney, NSW
Tamara Matulick: Department of Thoracic Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA
Dr Christian Osadnik: Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
Mary Roberts: Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW; Ludwig Engel Centre for
Respiratory Research, The Westmead Centre for Medical Research, Sydney, NSW
Dr James Walsh Physiotherapy Department, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, QLD; School of Allied Health Sciences,
Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD
Dr Sally Wootton: Chronic Disease Community Rehabilitation Service, Northern Sydney Local Health District, NSW;
Prof Anne E. Holland*: Discipline of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC; Department of Physiotherapy, Alfred Health,
Melbourne, VIC; Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Melbourne, VIC

*Lead Writing Group

On behalf of Lung Foundation Australia and the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

Correspondence
Professor Jennifer Alison
Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney
75 East St, Lidcombe NSW 2141 Australia
Email: [email protected]

ii
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Abstract
Aim

The aim of the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Guidelines (Guidelines) is to provide evidence-based

recommendations for the practice of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) specific to Australian and
New Zealand healthcare contexts.

Methods

The Guideline methodology adhered to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and
Evaluation (AGREE) II criteria. Nine key questions were constructed in accordance with the
PICO format and reviewed by a COPD consumer group for appropriateness. Systematic
reviews were undertaken for each question and recommendations made with the strength of
each recommendation based on the GRADE criteria. The Guidelines were externally reviewed
by a panel of experts.

Results

The Guideline panel recommended that people with mild to severe COPD should undergo
PR to improve quality of life and exercise capacity and to reduce hospital admissions; that
PR could be offered in hospital gyms, community centres or at home and could be provided
irrespective of the availability of a structured education program; that PR should be offered
to people with bronchiectasis, interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension, with
the latter in specialised centres. The Guideline panel was unable to make recommendations
relating to PR program length beyond eight weeks, the optimal model for maintenance
after PR, or the use of supplemental oxygen during exercise training. The strength of each
recommendation and the quality of the evidence are presented in the summary.

Conclusion

The Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation Guidelines present an evaluation of
the evidence for nine PICO questions, with recommendations to provide guidance for clinicians
and policy makers.

Key words

Bronchiectasis; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; exercise and pulmonary rehabilitation;

guidelines; interstitial lung disease

Short title

Pulmonary rehabilitation guidelines

1
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Summary of Recommendations
The guideline panel recommends that:

1. a) people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should undergo pulmonary
rehabilitation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

b) pulmonary rehabilitation is provided after an exacerbation of COPD, within two weeks of hospital
discharge (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

2. people with moderate-to-severe COPD (stable or following discharge from hospital for an exacerbation
of COPD) should undergo pulmonary rehabilitation to decrease hospitalisations for exacerbations
(strong recommendation, moderate-to-low quality evidence).

3. a) home-based pulmonary rehabilitation be offered to people with COPD as an alternative to usual care
(weak recommendation, moderate-to-low quality evidence).

b) home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, including regular contact to facilitate exercise participation

and progression, be offered to people with COPD as an alternative to hospital-based pulmonary
rehabilitation (weak recommendation, moderate-to-low quality evidence)

c) community-based pulmonary rehabilitation, of equivalent frequency and intensity as hospital-based

programs, be offered to people with COPD as an alternative to usual care (weak recommendation,
moderate quality evidence).

4. people with mild COPD (based on symptoms) undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (weak
recommendation, moderate-to-low quality evidence).

5. The panel is unable to make a recommendation due to lack of evidence evaluating whether programs
of longer duration are more effective than the standard eight-week programs.

6. a) more research is needed to determine the optimal model of maintenance exercise programs (‘in
research’ recommendation).

b) supervised maintenance programs of monthly, or less frequently, are insufficient to maintain the
gains of pulmonary rehabilitation and should not be offered (weak recommendation, low quality
evidence).

7. pulmonary rehabilitation be offered to all people with COPD, irrespective of the availability of a
structured multidisciplinary group education program (weak recommendation, moderate-to-low quality
evidence).

8. further research of oxygen supplementation during training is required in people with COPD who have
exercise-induced desaturation to reduce the uncertainty around its lack of effect to date (‘in research’
recommendation).

9. a) people with bronchiectasis undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (weak recommendation, moderate

quality evidence).

b) people with interstitial lung disease undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (weak recommendation, low
quality evidence).

c) people with pulmonary hypertension undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (weak recommendation, low
quality evidence).

2
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Introduction
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects 1.5 million Australians, including 1 in 13 people over
40 years of age, 1 with major consequences for participation in work and societal contexts. 2 The cost of
COPD in Australia was estimated at $8.8 billion in 2008/9 (most recent figures), with $929 million in direct
health system expenditure, due largely to hospital admissions. 3 Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Peoples) bear an unequal burden of disease in relation to COPD. Compared to non-
Indigenous Australians, the prevalence of COPD is 2.5 times higher, with the death rate being three times
higher and the hospitalisation rate five times higher in Indigenous Australians. 4 In New Zealand, COPD
affects approximately 200,000 of the population with 14% of adults over 40 years of age having COPD. 5 The
cost of COPD in New Zealand is estimated as $NZ 5.6 billion with $NZ 484 million in direct health system
expenditure. 5 Indigenous New Zealanders (Māori) have a higher prevalence of COPD, a 4.4 times higher
rate of hospital admissions, and 2.2 times more deaths associated with the condition compared with non-
Māori. 5, 6

Pulmonary rehabilitation is considered a key component of the management of people with COPD 7 and
has been shown to reduce symptoms of breathlessness and fatigue, improve health-related quality of
life (HRQoL), 8 and reduce hospital readmissions after an exacerbation. 9 However, uptake of pulmonary
rehabilitation is estimated to be only 5-10% of those people with moderate-to-severe COPD who could
benefit 10, 11, related to lack of available programs, poor referral rates and poor patient uptake of existing
programs. While international societies have published a number of documents to guide practice in
pulmonary rehabilitation, 12-15 none has specifically addressed the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation for
people with COPD in the healthcare contexts of Australia or New Zealand. In addition, a growing number of
patients with other chronic lung conditions such as bronchiectasis, interstitial lung disease and pulmonary
hypertension are referred to Australian and New Zealand pulmonary rehabilitation programs. Evidence for
the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation in these conditions also needs to be evaluated.

Scope and Purpose

These Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation Guidelines are primarily written for health
practitioners providing pulmonary rehabilitation and for the much wider group of health professionals
who refer patients to pulmonary rehabilitation in Australia or New Zealand. The patient populations
to whom the guidelines apply are those with chronic respiratory disease, primarily COPD, with some
evidence presented for patients with bronchiectasis, interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary hypertension.
Pulmonary rehabilitation for people with cystic fibrosis or lung cancer was considered outside the scope
of the guidelines due to the smaller body of evidence pertaining to structured pulmonary rehabilitation for
these groups.

Methodology
Members of the Australian Pulmonary Rehabilitation Network of Lung Foundation Australia and members
of the TSANZ were invited to submit an expression of interest to be considered for the writing group.
Participants were required to demonstrate expertise in pulmonary rehabilitation and ability to review
literature. In total, 28 healthcare professionals were appointed, with 11 of these forming the lead writing
group. The writing group had the following representation: twenty-two physiotherapists, two respiratory
physicians, one health psychologist, two nurses, and one exercise physiologist. Two members of the lead
writing group (SCJ and AEH) had specific expertise in guideline methodology.

The proposal for writing the Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation guidelines was
endorsed by the Clinical Care and Resources Subcommittee of the TSANZ and the process was supported
and coordinated by Lung Foundation Australia. The guideline methodology adhered to the Appraisal of
Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II criteria. 16

3
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

The research questions addressed in the guidelines were based on the writing group’s considered view
of the most important questions related to pulmonary rehabilitation in Australia and New Zealand, with
the intention of limiting the number of questions to less than ten. The questions were constructed in
accordance with the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) format. There were nine main
questions (Table 1), with PICO questions 1-8 relating specifically to people with COPD and PICO question
9 addressing pulmonary rehabilitation for people with bronchiectasis, interstitial lung disease, and
pulmonary hypertension. The questions were reviewed by a COPD consumer group (Australian COPD and
Patient Advocate Group) which agreed that the questions were appropriate.

Systematic literature searches

The definition of pulmonary rehabilitation agreed by the writing group, to set the parameters for the
minimum duration of pulmonary rehabilitation for the literature search, was that used in the most recent
Cochrane review: ‘Any in-patient, out-patient, community-based or home-based rehabilitation programme
of at least four weeks’ duration that included exercise therapy with or without any form of education and/or
psychological support delivered to patients with exercise limitation attributable to COPD’. 8

Systematic reviews were undertaken for each PICO question using standard methodology, 17 except
for question 1 and 9. As the updated Cochrane review of pulmonary rehabilitation had recently been
published,8 the data from that review were used as the basis to answer question 1a and the data from the
updated Cochrane review on hospital readmissions 9 were used as a basis to answer question 1b. Recently
published systematic reviews of pulmonary rehabilitation for bronchiectasis 18, interstitial lung disease
(ILD) 19 and pulmonary hypertension 20 were used to underpin question 9. Literature searches for all other
questions were undertaken with the assistance of university librarians. The databases searched were
Medline, PreMedline, EMBASE, OVID, CINAHL, Cochrane and Scopus. The search terms for each question
are in Supplementary Table S 1. Tables of the studies reviewed for each question are in Supplementary
Table S 2. Studies were selected for inclusion in the review if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
or systematic reviews that directly addressed the questions. To be included, studies had to report at least
one of the pre-specified outcomes of interest, such as exercise capacity, HRQoL, health care utilisation
(HCU), anxiety and depression, or mortality.

Appraisal of literature
For each question, at least two members of the writing group read the title and/or abstract of each
article from the literature search and decided whether to include the article for full review. At least two
reviewers for each question independently extracted data from the same studies. Additional information
from authors was requested if necessary. Risk of bias (high, low or unclear risk) for each included study
was evaluated based on the following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment,
blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data,
selective reporting, or any other bias. Where relevant, a meta-analysis was performed to quantify effect
size and certainty (Supplementary Figure S 1). Data and meta-analyses from relevant, recent systematic
reviews were used when available. The quality of the body of evidence for each recommendation was
evaluated using the GRADE (Gradings of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation)
system 21 which considered within-study risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity, precision of
effect estimates and risk of publication bias (GRADE evidence tables are in Supplementary Table S 4).
The strength of each recommendation was formulated based on the GRADE criteria which consider the
quality of the evidence and trade-offs between desirable and undesirable outcomes, confidence in effect
estimates, patient values and preferences, and resource implications. 22 In GRADE methodology, ‘strong’
and ‘weak’ recommendations are considered as categorical terminology on an underlying continuum,
with anchor categories of ‘strong against’, weak against’, ‘weak for’ and ‘strong for’. 22 The Evidence to
Recommendation tables that detail the items considered when making the decision regarding the strength
of the recommendations are in Supplementary Table S 4 and these tables should be read in conjunction
with each recommendation to provide the reader with the reasoning behind the decision regarding the
strength of each recommendation. A ‘strong’ recommendation means that all or almost all informed
patients would choose the recommended intervention as described; adherence to this recommendation
could be used in clinical practice as a quality criterion or performance indicator. A ‘weak’ recommendation

4
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

means that most informed patients would choose the recommendation as described; clinicians must help
each patient arrive at a management decision consistent with his or her values and preferences 23. An ‘in-
research’ recommendation means that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the intervention and
more research could clarify the effects of the intervention and would be worthwhile. 22

All members of the writing group (n=28) were asked to vote on each recommendation as ‘agree’, ‘disagree’
or ‘abstain’. The voting results are shown at the end of each of the Evidence to Recommendation tables in
Supplementary Table S 4. After review of the guidelines by an Expert Advisory Group, minor alterations
were made to the text but no major changes were made to the recommendations. The guidelines
were reviewed by the New Zealand Cardiothoracic Physiotherapy Special Interest Group, consumer
representatives, the Clinical Care and Resources Sub-Committee, Nursing, COPD, Physiotherapy and
OLIV Special Interest Groups of the TSANZ. The Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Guidelines will be disseminated through key stakeholder groups such as the Lung Foundation Australia
(including the Australian Pulmonary Rehabilitation Network), Lung Foundation New Zealand, Thoracic
Society of Australia and New Zealand, Australian Physiotherapy Association, Physiotherapy New Zealand,
Exercise and Sports Science Association Australia, Sport and Exercise Science New Zealand, Royal Australian
College of General Practitioners, Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, Australian College of
Nursing, New Zealand Nurses Organisation, as well as through clinicians registered to receive the COPD-X
Guidelines, university programs that provide physiotherapy and exercise physiology programs. The TSANZ
will develop quality standards that will be used to evaluate implementation and impact of the Guidelines.
The Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation Guidelines will be reviewed within five years of
publication to assess the need for update.

PICO Questions
Background, Summary of Evidence, Recommendation, Justification and Implementation

PICO 1: Is pulmonary rehabilitation effective compared with

usual care in patients with COPD?
Background: People with COPD experience breathlessness, reduced functional capacity, reduced HRQoL,
and poor psychological wellbeing. Pulmonary rehabilitation, incorporating exercise training and education,
is recommended for people with COPD with a view to improving breathlessness, exercise capacity, HRQoL
and psychological wellbeing.12, 15 Pulmonary rehabilitation is typically commenced when a person with
COPD is in a stable phase, however, there is increasing evidence that pulmonary rehabilitation plays an
important role following an exacerbation of COPD. In Australia and New Zealand, pulmonary rehabilitation
following an exacerbation of COPD is typically commenced in the outpatient setting, whereas in some
European centres pulmonary rehabilitation occurs in the in-patient setting. The following recommendations
are presented for two categories of patients: stable COPD and following an exacerbation of COPD.

(a) Stable COPD

Summary of the evidence: A Cochrane review that examined the evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation
in stable COPD included 65 RCTs 8. Outcomes of interest were confined to measures of exercise capacity
and HRQoL. For exercise capacity measured by the six-minute walk test (6MWT), pulmonary rehabilitation
compared to usual care resulted in a mean difference (MD) of 44 metres (95% confidence interval [CI] 33
to 55) in favour of pulmonary rehabilitation (38 studies, number of participants (n)= 1879). A sensitivity
analysis of studies with lower risk of bias yielded a smaller mean difference in 6MWT for pulmonary
rehabilitation compared to usual care (MD 26 metres, 95% CI 21 to 32, 20 studies, n=1188, moderate quality
evidence). This MD falls within the range of the minimal important difference (MID) (range 25-33m).24 For
HRQoL, the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation was larger than the MID for all four domains of the Chronic
Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) (i.e. Fatigue, Emotional Function, Mastery and Dyspnoea) (MID is
0.5 units per domain) 25 and the three components (Symptoms, Impacts, Activity) and Total score of the St
George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (MID is -4 points) 25 (SGRQ Total score MD -6.89 units, 95% CI
-9.26 to -4.52, 19 studies, n=1146, moderate quality evidence). A sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk

5
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

of bias yielded a slightly smaller MD for SGRQ Total score, but this still exceeded the MID (MD -5.15 units,
95% CI -7.95 to -2.36, 7 studies, n=572, moderate quality evidence due to a high level of heterogeneity).
Importantly, the Cochrane Airways Group has decided to close the Cochrane Review of pulmonary
rehabilitation, stating that further RCTs comparing pulmonary rehabilitation to conventional care in COPD
are no longer warranted since further RCTs will not result in improved quality of evidence or improved
precision in the estimate of effect. The Cochrane Airways Group believes that the remaining issues around
risk of bias, such as blinding of patients and personnel, cannot be addressed with better study design. 26

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that people with stable COPD should
undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Justification and implementation: This recommendation places a high value on moderate quality
evidence of short-term (immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation) significant and clinically
important effects on valued outcomes of improved exercise capacity and HRQoL. 27, 28

(b) Following an exacerbation of COPD

Summary of the evidence: A Cochrane review that examined the evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation
following exacerbations of COPD 9 included 17 randomised controlled trials examining a range of outcomes
related to exercise capacity, HRQoL, subsequent hospitalisations, mortality and adverse events. Of the
total 17 trials, five commenced pulmonary rehabilitation within two weeks of participants being discharged
from hospital for an exacerbation of COPD, 29-33 similar to COPD management in the Australian and New
Zealand health care context. Trials that commenced pulmonary rehabilitation during an inpatient stay
were excluded. Meta-analyses of these five trials are presented in Figure S 1. A large effect on exercise
capacity was found with a MD in 6MWT of 56 metres (95% CI 27 to 85, 2 studies 31, 32, n=116, moderate
quality evidence), which exceeded the MID. 24 A large effect on HRQoL was also found (SGRQ Total score
MD -10.64 units, 95% CI -15.51 to -5.77, 5 studies 28-32, n=248, moderate quality evidence), which exceeded
the MID. 25 Pulmonary rehabilitation commenced within two weeks of hospital discharge tended to reduce
repeat hospital admissions (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.29, 4 studies 28-31, n=187, moderate
quality evidence) with no effect on mortality (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.34, 2 studies 28,31, n=101, low quality
evidence). No adverse events were reported in these studies.

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that pulmonary rehabilitation is

provided after an exacerbation of COPD, within two weeks of hospital discharge (weak
recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Justification and implementation: This recommendation places a high value on moderate quality
evidence of short-term (immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation) significant and clinically
important effects on valued outcomes of improved exercise capacity, HRQoL and reduced hospital
readmissions. 27, 28, 34

PICO 2: Does pulmonary rehabilitation affect health care

utilisation?
Background: Exacerbations are common in people with COPD and increase in prevalence with worsening
airflow limitation. 35 Hospitalisations for severe exacerbations have major significance as they lead to
disease progression, deterioration in HRQoL and increased mortality. 36-38 Within Australia and New
Zealand, consistent with international data, severe exacerbations leading to hospitalisation are the
primary driver of all COPD-related medical care costs accounting for 50-75% of the direct COPD-associated
healthcare costs. 6, 39-41 In 2013-14, the hospitalisation rate for COPD among people aged 55 years and over
was 1,008 per 100,000 population in Australia 39 and the average cost of one hospital admission for COPD
(2011-12 data) without complications or comorbidities (average length of stay [LOS] 5.0 days) was $A5,500,
equivalent to more than 100 general practice consultations. 42 A majority of people with COPD have two or
more comorbidities, 43 resulting in an estimated doubling or tripling of the cost of care. 44

6
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Summary of evidence: The search strategy yielded 2546 citations of which 2505 citations were excluded
based on title and abstract. A total of 41 full papers were extracted and reviewed. An additional four papers
were sourced from pulmonary rehabilitation statements, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.
In total, 45 papers underwent full review of which nine RCTs reported the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation
on HCU, defined as the reporting of respiratory-related admissions, length of stay (i.e. the mean or median
length of stay for hospital admissions in the follow-up period) or total bed days (i.e. the absolute numbers
of days in hospital in the follow-up period) and satisfied the criteria for data extraction. 29-32, 45-49 In five
trials, 45-49 patients had stable COPD and in the remaining four trials 29-32 patients commenced pulmonary
rehabilitation no later than three weeks following an exacerbation of COPD requiring hospitalisation.
Pulmonary rehabilitation was delivered in hospital outpatient departments (6 trials) 29, 31, 32, 45, 46, 48, within
the patient’s home (2 trials) 30, 47 and in one trial, rehabilitation took place within physiotherapy private
practices. 49 The follow-up period for collection of HCU data ranged from 3 months, including the 8-week
intervention period, 29, 31 to at least 12 months. 32, 45, 46, 48, 49 Eight RCTs (n=712) evaluated the effect of
pulmonary rehabilitation on respiratory-related admissions 29-32, 45-47, 49, four trials (n=358) assessed LOS 32, 45,
47, 48
and two trials (n=241) reported the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on total bed days. 29, 49 Two trials
31, 45
(n=260) demonstrated that pulmonary rehabilitation significantly reduced hospital admissions, both in
those with stable COPD 45 and those who commenced pulmonary rehabilitation within seven days following
discharge from hospital for an exacerbation of COPD. 31

A meta-analysis of the four trials 29-32 (n=194) (Supplementary Figure S 1) in which pulmonary rehabilitation
commenced within two weeks of discharge after an exacerbation of COPD showed a trend towards a
reduction in readmissions following rehabilitation (Odds Ratio 0.30 [95% CI 0.07 to 1.29]). Of the four RCTs
that assessed the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on LOS, two reported a significant reduction in the
mean LOS in the group receiving rehabilitation (9.4 [SD 10.2] vs 18.1 [19.3] days, p=0.021 45 and 5.9 [0.33]
vs 9.3 [4.11] days, p=0.035) 47 with no effect on LOS demonstrated in the remaining two trials. 32, 48 The
two trials 29, 49 that reported the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on total bed days, one of which was
in patients with less severe COPD, 49 found no difference between the rehabilitation and control groups,
however neither trial was powered to detect changes in HCU. Quality of the evidence was rated down for
indirectness (high proportion of males in some studies) and imprecision (small number of participants and
large confidence intervals around the estimates).

Only one of the nine RCTs was carried out in Australia 47 and none took place in New Zealand. An additional
RCT from Australia 50 (published as abstract only) showed a significant reduction in hospital admissions
and LOS following pulmonary rehabilitation compared to a control group. Due to the lack of relevant
RCTs carried out in the local health care context, non-RCT evidence from Australia or New Zealand was
considered. Six non-RCTs carried out in Australia that compared HCU in the 12 months before and after
pulmonary rehabilitation were identified. 51-56 All reported a reduction in hospitalisations for exacerbations
of COPD following pulmonary rehabilitation. One study was a large sample (n=267) trial that showed a
significant reduction in admissions in the year after compared to the year before a pulmonary rehabilitation
program that comprised exercise training alone or in combination with a structured disease-specific
education program. 51 A further five observational studies (n=975) of pulmonary rehabilitation delivered in
hospital outpatient departments 52-55 and in non-healthcare facilities within the community56 also reported
a reduction in hospitalisations in the 12 months following rehabilitation. Because of their uncontrolled
nature, regression to the mean cannot be excluded in these studies. Although there is a paucity of data
from RCTs carried out in Australia or New Zealand, given the large body of evidence supporting the benefits
of pulmonary rehabilitation it is unlikely that any further RCTs with long-term follow-up, such as are needed
for evaluating the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on HCU, will be undertaken in Australia or New
Zealand due to the ethical concerns of denying patients pulmonary rehabilitation where this is available.

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that people with moderate-to-severe

COPD (stable or following discharge from hospital for an exacerbation of COPD) should
undergo pulmonary rehabilitation to decrease hospitalisations for exacerbations (strong
recommendation, moderate-to-low quality evidence).

Justification and Implementation: This recommendation places a high value on moderate-to-low

quality evidence for outcomes that are important to patients. The recommendation is ‘strong’ since,
from a patient’s perspective, avoidance of being hospitalised, housebound or confined to bed as a result
of an exacerbation has high importance. 34

7
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

PICO 3: Is a home- or community-based pulmonary

rehabilitation program as effective as a hospital-based
pulmonary rehabilitation program?
Background: Despite strong evidence for the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation highlighted in PICO 1,
the proportion of people with COPD who participate in pulmonary rehabilitation is low, estimated at no
more than 5-10% of patients with moderate-severe COPD 10, 11. Most pulmonary rehabilitation programs
in Australia and New Zealand have been offered in a hospital outpatient setting and access is limited for
patients who do not live close to such centres. A common patient-reported barrier to participating in
hospital-based programs is difficulty with transport to the facility 57. Pulmonary rehabilitation programs
conducted in home or community-based settings could help to overcome these barriers and potentially
improve access and uptake.

To examine the evidence relating to the effectiveness of home-based and community-based pulmonary
rehabilitation programs, three separate comparisons were made:

• Is home-based pulmonary rehabilitation more effective than usual care for people with COPD?

• Is home-based pulmonary rehabilitation as effective as hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation for

people with COPD?

• Is community-based pulmonary rehabilitation more effective than usual care for people with COPD?

We defined home-based pulmonary rehabilitation as programs where the intervention took place in the
participant’s home, and community-based rehabilitation as programs where the intervention took place
in a community-based setting (i.e. not a hospital and not at home). As with all the other questions, the
definition of pulmonary rehabilitation intervention in the Cochrane review 8 was used as the criterion
for study inclusion with an additional criterion for question 3 that the exercise therapy delivered must
include a lower limb endurance training component (i.e. not just ‘general exercises’). This was to improve
applicability of the guideline findings to Australian and New Zealand practice, where prescription of lower
limb endurance exercise is a core part of the prescribed exercise therapy in pulmonary rehabilitation 58, 59.

(a) Is home-based pulmonary rehabilitation more effective than usual care for
people with COPD?
Summary of the evidence: Eleven studies were identified that made a direct comparison of home-based
pulmonary rehabilitation programs with usual care control. Three examined home-based programs that
commenced within 4 weeks of a hospital admission for an exacerbation of COPD 30, 60, 61; in the other
eight studies the participants were in a stable clinical condition. In five studies, home-based exercise
sessions were directly supervised to some degree, ranging from every session 30 to once a week 47, 62
or fortnightly. 63, 64 In all 11 studies participants were assessed in a hospital centre. Compared to usual
care, home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with stable COPD resulted in large improvements
in HRQoL substantially greater than the MID for all domains of the CRQ and for the SGRQ Impacts and
Activity components, with similar improvements in those attending pulmonary rehabilitation following
an exacerbation of COPD (reported for CRQ domains of Dyspnoea, Fatigue and Mastery only), based on
moderate quality evidence. For example, in stable COPD the pooled mean difference between home-based
pulmonary rehabilitation and control in CRQ-Dyspnoea was 0.77 units (95% CI 0.44 to 1.10, 2 studies 62,
65
, n=77) and CRQ-Fatigue was 0.86 units, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.32 units, 2 studies 62, 65, n=77). For the 6MWT in
stable COPD the mean difference in favour of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation was 47 metres (95%
CI 24 to 71, 3 studies 62, 63, 66, n=222, low quality evidence), exceeding the MID (see Supplementary Figure
S 1 for meta-analyses). Quality of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias from lack of assessor
blinding, imprecision and indirectness due to high proportions of male participants (>90%).

8
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that home-based pulmonary

rehabilitation be offered to people with COPD as an alternative to usual care (weak
recommendation, moderate-to-low quality evidence).

Justification and Implementation: This recommendation places high value on moderate-to-low

quality evidence of short-term, moderate effects on outcomes of importance to patients such as
enhanced HRQoL, reduced breathlessness and improved exercise tolerance. The strength of the
recommendation was ‘weak’ due to the differing models of home-based rehabilitation programs with
lack of evidence regarding the optimal format. Since many of the exercise sessions in home-based
programs were unsupervised it is likely that regular contact with a physiotherapist or accredited exercise
physiologist who is experienced in prescribing exercise-based rehabilitation is critical to ensure that
patients receive a sufficient exercise dose to obtain program benefits. Most of the evidence is derived
from participants with stable COPD (more than four weeks after an exacerbation of COPD) providing
greater confidence in recommending implementation of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in this
group.

(b) Is home-based pulmonary rehabilitation an effective alternative to hospital-

based pulmonary rehabilitation for people with COPD?
Summary of the evidence: A search of the literature located 278 citations including three systematic
reviews 8, 67, 68 of studies examining the effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation. One
additional RCT from Australia, comparing home-based rehabilitation to a standard hospital-based program
69
, was published after the search was conducted and was included because of its direct relevance to
this question. Of the included studies, six made a direct comparison of home-based with hospital-based
pulmonary rehabilitation. 69-74 Two studies were powered for equivalence. 69, 71 In one study every session of
home-based exercise was directly supervised by a physiotherapist 74; the other five home-based programs
69-73
included supervision of the initial session only and/or telephone contact. Three of the studies, including
the two largest trials 69, 71, reported regular weekly contact with participants in the home-based intervention
69, 71, 73
but frequency of contact was unreported in the other three studies. 70, 72, 74

Improvements gained post pulmonary rehabilitation in HRQoL were not statistically different or clinically
important between programs conducted in home and hospital settings e.g. CRQ-Dyspnoea MD 0.00 units,
95% CI -0.22 to 0.23, 3 studies, 69-71 n=414 (Supplementary Figure S 1). However, within-group changes
exceeded the MID in both settings. 69-71 This finding of similar benefits in HRQoL was consistent in all
studies for measures using the CRQ and SGRQ. Changes in HRQoL in both settings exceeded the MID
for some but not all domains. Changes in exercise tolerance were not clinically or statistically different
between home-based and hospital-based programs for the 6MWT (MD 3.5 metres, 95% CI -12.9 to 19.6,
n=255, Supplementary Figure S 1) 69, 70, 72 with similar findings for endurance treadmill test 73 and maximal
incremental exercise tests. 73, 74 Quality of the evidence was rated down for risk of bias due to lack of
blinding and indirectness due to gender imbalance (60-100% of participants in each study were male).

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that home-based pulmonary

rehabilitation, including regular contact to facilitate exercise participation and progression,
be offered to people with COPD as an alternative to hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation
(weak recommendation, moderate-to-low quality evidence).

Justification and Implementation. This recommendation places high value on moderate quality
evidence of no significant differences in short-term outcomes of importance to patients (such as
enhanced HRQoL, reduced breathlessness and improved exercise tolerance), whether the pulmonary
rehabilitation is a hospital-based or home-based program. The strength of the recommendation
was ‘weak’ due to the differing models of home-based rehabilitation programs with lack of evidence
regarding the optimal format. Since many of the exercise sessions in home-based programs were
unsupervised it is likely that regular contact with a physiotherapist or accredited exercise physiologist
who is experienced in prescribing exercise-based rehabilitation is critical to ensure that patients receive
a sufficient exercise dose to obtain program benefits.

9
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

(c) Is community-based pulmonary rehabilitation more effective than usual

care for people with COPD?
Six studies that met our definition of community-based pulmonary rehabilitation 49, 75-79 were identified
from an existing Cochrane review. 8 An additional search covering the period not included in the Cochrane
review (March 2014 to February 2016) identified one further study. 80

Summary of the evidence: Of the seven included studies, four implemented community-based programs
with exercise sessions of at least moderate intensity supervised twice a week 49, 75, 78, 80 (n=259), consistent
with the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation in Australia and New Zealand. In other studies the exercise
component was of low intensity 79 or implemented once weekly. 76, 77 Compared with usual care, community
based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in moderate improvements in overall HRQoL (SGRQ Total score
MD -4.2 units, 95% CI -6.5 to -1.9, 3 studies, 49, 78, 80 (n=229). Exercise frequency and intensity in these three
studies was consistent with typical hospital-based programs in the Australian and New Zealand settings.
Pooled data from studies that used the CRQ to measure HRQoL 76, 79 indicated a change in favour of the
intervention for the CRQ Dyspnoea domain only (MD 0.53 units, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.80, 2 studies 76, 79, n=343)
with no differences in other domains (Supplementary Figure S 1). Both of these studies 76, 79 implemented
low intensity or frequency of exercise which may help to explain their lack of effect on the other domains of
the CRQ. Endurance exercise capacity showed clinically meaningful improvements from community-based
pulmonary rehabilitation compared with control (cycle endurance test MD 221 seconds, 95% CI 5 to 437) 49
and treadmill (MD 194 seconds). 80 Evidence is limited for effectiveness on 6MWT and ISWT due to risk of
bias (high attrition and lack of blinding) 75-79, imprecision (6MWT protocol variation) 49 and indirectness (low
intensity and frequency of exercise). 76, 77, 79

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that community-based pulmonary

rehabilitation, of equivalent frequency and intensity as hospital-based programs, be offered
to people with COPD as an alternative to usual care (weak recommendation, moderate quality
evidence).

Justification and implementation: This recommendation places high value on moderate quality
evidence of short-term, moderate effects on outcomes of importance to patients such as enhanced
HRQoL, reduced breathlessness and improved exercise tolerance. None of the studies reported
whether participants within four weeks after an exacerbation of COPD were included, therefore the
recommendation cannot be extended to this group. The optimal model for community-based programs
is not known, however the exercise training component must be delivered at a similar frequency and
intensity as hospital-based programs in order to achieve clinically meaningful benefits for patients.
Implementation of pulmonary rehabilitation in home or community-based settings could help overcome
common barriers of availability, access and difficulty travelling to hospital-based programs expressed by
people with COPD. 57

PICO 4: In people with mild disease severity, is pulmonary

rehabilitation more effective than usual care?
Background: People with COPD present with a range of disease severities, from mild to severe. The
Australian COPD-X Guidelines 7 and an international pulmonary rehabilitation statement 15 recommend
referral to pulmonary rehabilitation for all patients, regardless of the degree of disease severity. Spruit
and colleagues suggest that patients with mild disease may benefit from preventative strategies and
maintenance of physical activity, and pulmonary rehabilitation may be, but is not necessarily included
in these strategies. 15 Whilst pulmonary rehabilitation is supported by Level I evidence (PICO 1), the
effectiveness in mild disease is not as well established. The COPD-X Guidelines define mild COPD as an
FEV1 between 60-80% predicted, with few symptoms, breathlessness on moderate exertion and little or no
effect on daily activities. 7

Summary of the evidence: The search strategy yielded 34 citations and hand searching identified a further
four citations, 38 in total. Based on evaluation of the abstracts and titles, 30 citations were excluded and

10
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

a further four citations were excluded on review of the full papers, leaving four papers for full review and
data extraction. Studies defined mild disease in two ways; based on an FEV1 cut off 81-83 or symptoms. 84
The studies based on FEV1 either did not report detailed data for the mild group specifically and did not
respond to requests for data 82, or were of very low quality. 81, 83 As such, the focus of this question was
limited to studies that used symptoms to categorise disease severity.

A systematic review 84 that examined the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients with
a modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) breathlessness score ≤1 included four RCTs 49, 78, 79, 82(n=489).
Compared to usual care, pulmonary rehabilitation in people with mild COPD resulted in short-term (up to
six months) improvements in HRQoL; MD in the SGRQ was -4.2 units (95% CI -4.5 to -3.9), exceeding the
MID 85 (2 studies 78, 82, n=207, moderate quality). Effects on HRQoL were no longer evident at the longest
follow-up period of 24 months. Functional exercise capacity (6MWT) showed a mean improvement of 25.7
metres (95% CI 15.8 to 35.5 metres, 4 studies 49, 78, 79, 82, n=313, moderate quality evidence). This just reached
the lower end of the MID. 24 Quality of the evidence was rated down for risk of bias, particularly lack of
assessor and participant blinding

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that people with mild COPD (based on
symptoms) undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (weak recommendation, moderate-to-low
quality evidence).

Justification and implementation: This recommendation places a high value on moderate quality
evidence of clinically significant short-term improvement in functional exercise capacity and HRQoL,
and low value on cost and uncertainty regarding patient preference. Whilst benefits from pulmonary
rehabilitation in patients with symptomatically mild disease are evident, we recognise that patients are
heterogeneous in terms of lung function and symptoms. As such, further research is needed to examine
the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation in mild disease based on a multidimensional assessment of these
variables and an objective assessment of disease severity.

PICO 5: Are programs of longer duration more effective than the

standard eight week programs?
Background: The duration of pulmonary rehabilitation programs reported in the literature varies from four
weeks to 18 months. Pulmonary rehabilitation programs of 8-weeks’ duration are commonly recommended
in pulmonary rehabilitation statements 15 and guidelines. 12-14 While a large number of pulmonary
rehabilitation programs in Australia and New Zealand are conducted over an 8-week duration 58, 59, it is
unclear whether significant benefits may be conferred from programs of a longer duration.
Summary of evidence: The search strategy to determine whether differences exist between 8-week
pulmonary rehabilitation programs and those of longer duration, in terms of exercise capacity and HRQoL,
yielded 6712 citations, of which 6698 citations were excluded based on title and abstract. Fourteen papers
were reviewed in full text however no RCTs were identified that directly compared pulmonary rehabilitation
programs of 8-weeks to programs of longer duration.

Recommendation: The panel is unable to make a recommendation due to lack of evidence

evaluating whether programs of longer duration are more effective than the standard eight-
week programs.

Justification and Implementation: There is no direct evidence comparing 8-week programs to those
of longer duration. In order to provide some guidance for program duration, we extracted data from
trials included in the most recent Cochrane review of pulmonary rehabilitation 8 that were consistent
with current Australian and New Zealand practice of 2-3 supervised exercise sessions per week. We
compared outcomes from RCTs of 8-week pulmonary rehabilitation programs and RCTs of 12-week
pulmonary rehabilitation programs. For the outcome of 6MWT, there were six RCTs of 8-week programs
compared to usual care (n= 218) 86-91 and four RCTs of 12-week programs compared to usual care
(n=225) 72, 75, 92, 93. Meta-analyses demonstrated a MD for 6MWT of 77 metres (95% CI 54 to 100) for the
8-week programs and 57 metres (95% CI 27 to 88) for the 12-week programs. No significant difference
in improvement in 6MWT between programs of different durations was observed (p=0.31). For the

11
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

outcome of SGRQ, there were five RCTs of 8-week programs compared to usual care (n= 182) 86-88, 91, 94
and only one RCT of a 12-week pulmonary rehabilitation program compared to usual care (n=26) 92, thus
there were insufficient data to compare SGRQ between programs of 8-weeks and 12-weeks duration
for HRQoL. For the 8-week programs versus usual care the MD for SGRQ Total score was -9.6 units (95%
CI -15 to -4) which is greater than the MID of -4 points. 25 The MD for SGRQ Total score for the study
of a 12-week pulmonary rehabilitation program was -5 units (95% CI -14 to 4). (Meta-analyses are in
Supplementary Figure S 1).

PICO 6: Does ongoing supervised exercise at a lower frequency

than the initial pulmonary rehabilitation program maintain
exercise capacity and quality of life to 12 months in people with
COPD?
Background: These guidelines recommend the use of pulmonary rehabilitation programs for people
with stable COPD and following an exacerbation of COPD (PICO 1a and b). However, functional exercise
capacity and HRQoL often decline in the 12 months following pulmonary rehabilitation completion. 95, 96
Consequently, ongoing supervised exercise programs are offered following pulmonary rehabilitation. In
Australia, 72% of pulmonary rehabilitation programs offer supervised maintenance exercise programs
(unpublished Lung Foundation Australia data) at a lower frequency than the initial program (e.g. once
a week or once a month). Whether this is the best way to maintain the benefits gained from pulmonary
rehabilitation to 12 months and beyond remains unclear.

Summary of evidence: The search strategy yielded 51 citations of which 32 full papers and eight abstracts
were extracted and reviewed. Of these, the recommendations in this guideline are based on the review
of 11 RCTs that reported maintenance exercise programs consisting of supervised exercise at a lower
frequency than the initial pulmonary rehabilitation programs. 49, 79, 95-103 A comparison across the studies
was challenging given that three studies reported long-term changes compared to the beginning of the
pulmonary rehabilitation programs (pre-rehabilitation) and eight studies compared outcomes to the end of
the pulmonary rehabilitation programs (post-rehabilitation). Furthermore, studies were heterogeneous in
the delivery of interventions (e.g. frequency of supervised exercise) and measurement of outcomes.

When weekly supervised exercise was performed as a maintenance exercise program, one study (n=22)
reported that at 12 months, functional exercise capacity and HRQoL were not significantly different to
pre-rehabilitation and showed no differences compared to a group who were supervised monthly. 100 In
contrast, in three studies (n=204) where results at 12 months were compared to post-rehabilitation, weekly
supervised exercise maintained functional exercise capacity, 79, 103 peak exercise capacity, 103 endurance
exercise capacity 103 and HRQoL. 99, 103 However, there was no difference compared to the control groups
that consisted of standard care or unsupervised home exercise with regular review. 79, 99, 103 In studies
where supervised exercise sessions were progressively reduced (weekly supervised exercise followed by
second weekly, followed by monthly) during the maintenance period, two studies (n= 77) reported that at
12 months, exercise capacity was better than pre-rehabilitation in the intervention groups, and that the
control groups (unsupervised home exercise) had declined below pre-rehabilitation levels. 98, 102 However,
no between group differences were reported. 98, 102 Based on the results of the above studies, there appears
to be no added benefit gained from weekly supervised exercise or a reducing frequency of supervised
exercise compared to unsupervised home exercise with regular review, as a maintenance exercise
program.

When monthly or three monthly supervised exercise was performed as a maintenance exercise program
in five studies (n=512), there was a significant decline at 12 months in exercise capacity and HRQoL in both
the intervention and control groups, compared to both pre- 49, 101 and post-rehabilitation. 95-97 Based on the
results of these studies, maintenance exercise programs of monthly or three monthly supervised exercises
are insufficient to maintain exercise capacity or quality of life to 12 months.
The overall quality of the evidence from the above studies was low and rated down for risk of bias (lack
of random sequence generation and assessor blinding with unclear allocation) and imprecision (small
numbers of studies and participants contributing to meta-analysis with some studies having missing data).

12
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that: a) more research is needed

to determine the optimal model of maintenance exercise programs (‘in research’
recommendation); b) supervised maintenance programs of monthly or less frequently are
insufficient to maintain the gains of pulmonary rehabilitation and should not be offered
(weak recommendation, low quality evidence).

Justification and implementation: The recommendation places a high value on low quality evidence
that monthly supervised ongoing exercise is insufficient to maintain outcomes of importance to
patients compared to standard care. While there may be benefits of weekly, supervised maintenance
exercise, current low quality evidence suggests that it is no better than standard care of unsupervised
exercise with regular review. When participants were surveyed following the completion of a 12-month
maintenance exercise program, positive attitudes towards both the supervised and unsupervised
maintenance exercise programs were reported, with no between-group differences found for
the importance of exercise, the benefits of the program or the importance of support from the
physiotherapist. 104 Further research is required to clarify the benefits, location and the cost-benefit of
weekly supervised exercise as a maintenance program. However, some form of regular ongoing exercise
should be encouraged once pulmonary rehabilitation has been completed to sustain the benefits
gained.

PICO 7: Does a structured education program enhance the

benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation?
Background: In Australia and New Zealand, the majority of pulmonary rehabilitation programs have
reported providing a structured education program. 58 Health education in this format is provided by
members of a multi-disciplinary team to patients as a group audience. Topics are pre-determined and
cover the disease (COPD) and aspects of its management, and may be accompanied by written material.
Structured education in pulmonary rehabilitation is reported to be valued by patients with COPD. 105
Summary of Evidence: The search strategy yielded 278 citations of which 250 were excluded based on title
and abstract. A further 24 citations were excluded on review of the full paper, leaving four papers for full
review and data extraction.

Two RCTs compared a twice weekly outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program that included supervised
exercise training and a structured education program to supervised exercise training alone. 51, 106 One
of these RCTs was a large Australian trial (n=267). 51 Patients in both models demonstrated significant
improvements in key outcomes, however there were no additional benefits attributable to the education
program in exercise capacity (6MWT), HRQoL (CRQ), dyspnoea (Medical Research Council [MRC] dyspnoea
score), self-efficacy or health behaviour in the short-term or long-term (12 months). In the Australian trial,
the findings were limited by a low completion rate in the intervention group (60%) and a large loss to
follow up (26%) that was greater in the exercise only group. 51 However, in the secondary outcome of HCU,
for which data were available for all participants, there remained no enhanced benefit of the education
program in terms of hospitalisations in the 12 months following pulmonary rehabilitation. The smaller trial
(n=22) found that the lecture series negatively affected emotional function compared to exercise training
alone (p=0.03) despite the additional attention participants received from health care professionals.
106
This trial was not adequately powered to detect differences between groups in most outcomes and
lacked blinding. Similarly, an observational study of Italian patients who elected to attend a structured
education program (n=226) or not (n=59) in conjunction with supervised exercise training demonstrated
no differences between groups in exercise capacity (6MWT), breathlessness (MRC), HRQoL (SGRQ) or
responses to a knowledge and learning impact questionnaire. 107 An evaluation of a new structured
education program for COPD in pulmonary rehabilitation delivered in 11 hospitals and community-based
programs in Northern Ireland demonstrated high patient satisfaction and a significant improvement in
knowledge, understanding and self-efficacy. 108 The results from these observational studies are at high risk
of bias due to study design, selection bias and lack of blinding. 107, 108

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that pulmonary rehabilitation be offered

to all people with COPD, irrespective of the availability of a structured multidisciplinary group
education program (weak recommendation, moderate-to-low quality evidence).

13
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Justification and implementation: This recommendation places a high value on moderate-to-low

quality evidence from a small number of studies. The role of education within pulmonary rehabilitation
is highly valued by patients and clinicians. The provision of knowledge in an appropriate format is an
essential component of effective patient self-management. It is possible that behaviour change in
pulmonary rehabilitation may be further promoted with the addition of self-management interventions.
15, 109
The guideline panel only reviewed structured group education and did not review individualised
models of education or self-management interventions for people with COPD and therefore cannot
make a recommendation regarding these strategies within the context of pulmonary rehabilitation.

PICO 8: Do patients who experience oxygen desaturation during

exercise have greater improvements if oxygen supplementation
is provided during training?
Background: Exercise-induced oxygen desaturation (EID) is common among people with COPD, with an
Australian study indicating that 47% of those referred to a pulmonary rehabilitation program demonstrated
a decrease in oxygen saturation to less than 90% during a 6MWT 110. It is plausible that the intensity of
exercise training achieved in a pulmonary rehabilitation program by people with COPD with EID may be
compromised, particularly if clinicians attempt to minimise EID by decreasing training intensity or imposing
mandatory rests. A reduction in training intensity may have repercussions for the magnitude of training
effect achieved. Consequently, oxygen supplementation may be provided in pulmonary rehabilitation
programs for people with COPD who experience EID. It has been known for over 50 years that oxygen
supplementation can improve exercise capacity in COPD 111 but the effect of oxygen supplementation
during exercise training for people with COPD with EID is unclear.

Summary of the evidence: The search strategy yielded 2052 citations of which 2042 were excluded based
on title and abstract. A total of 10 full papers were extracted and reviewed. Of these, four RCTs were
identified 112-115 addressing the question. The level of evidence of these RCTs was low due to imprecision
and high risk of bias from lack of assessor blinding and drop-out.

The results from the RCTs examining whether oxygen supplementation should be provided during exercise
training for people with COPD who experience EID were inconsistent. Most of the RCTs 112-114 indicated that
there was no difference using supplemental oxygen versus no supplemental oxygen (i.e. compressed air or
room air) on exercise capacity, breathlessness and levels of anxiety/depression following exercise training
in people with EID. In contrast, one study demonstrated greater improvement in endurance walking
capacity using supplemental oxygen during training compared to no supplemental oxygen (i.e. room air).
115
However, the exercise testing protocol in this study at baseline and follow-up was not consistent as the
end tests were performed on the gas to which each participant was randomised, and compared to baseline
assessment which was performed on room air. This protocol eliminated the ability to conclude whether
improvements were due to the acute effects of the supplemental oxygen or due to a training effect. No
RCTs examined mortality or HCU.

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends further research of oxygen

supplementation during training is required in people with COPD who have exercise-induced
desaturation, to reduce the uncertainty around its lack of effect to date (‘in research’
recommendation).

Justification and implementation: There is insufficient evidence to confirm the benefits of oxygen
supplementation during exercise training compared to no oxygen supplementation in people with COPD
who have EID. Currently, supplemental oxygen is used in most Australian pulmonary rehabilitation
programs to ensure safety and relieve symptoms for people with COPD experiencing EID. The provision
of supplemental oxygen during pulmonary rehabilitation increases program costs and restricts the
venues where training can be delivered. More research is needed to provide clarity as to whether
supplemental oxygen during exercise training should be used in people with COPD who experience EID.

14
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

PICO 9: Is pulmonary rehabilitation effective in chronic

respiratory diseases other than COPD?
PICO 9a: Is pulmonary rehabilitation effective in people with
bronchiectasis?
Background: Bronchiectasis is characterised by bronchial dilatation secondary to inflammation, infection
and reduced mucociliary clearance. People with bronchiectasis experience persistent cough with sputum
production, reduced exercise tolerance, breathlessness, fatigue and poor HRQoL. Exacerbations of
bronchiectasis are common and are an indicator of poor prognosis. 116 Treatment for bronchiectasis aims
to improve control of symptoms, reduce exacerbation frequency, maintain lung function and optimise
HRQoL. Such treatment includes careful antibiotic selection and may include airway clearance techniques.
117

Summary of the evidence: To inform this guideline, a systematic review was used. 18 The search strategy
for this review yielded 82 citations and of these, three RCTs with a total of 135 participants with stable
bronchiectasis were included. 118-120 HRQoL improved in the pulmonary rehabilitation group compared to
control (SGRQ Total score MD -4.6 points, 95% CI -6.5 to -2.6, 2 studies, n=103, moderate quality evidence).
The incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) improved by 64.5 metres compared to control ( exceeding the MID
24
(95% CI 49.4 to 79.6 metres, 3 studies, 118-120 n=122, moderate quality evidence). Quality was rated down
for risk of bias (lack of assessor blinding in some studies). A single study (n=76) reported no difference
between groups for anxiety or depression, although the number of participants with mood disturbance
at baseline was low. 118 No studies reported HCU, although one trial reported a lower frequency of
exacerbations in the pulmonary rehabilitation group, with a longer time to first exacerbation (8 months vs 6
months, p = 0.047). 118 Longer term follow-up in one study showed that benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation
were not sustained at six or 12 months. 118

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that people with bronchiectasis undergo
pulmonary rehabilitation (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Justification and implementation: This recommendation places a high value on moderate-to-low

quality evidence of clinically significant improvements in exercise capacity and overall HRQoL, and a low
value on uncertainty regarding magnitude and duration of benefit. All trials of pulmonary rehabilitation
for bronchiectasis have included airway clearance techniques, which may not be a standard component
of pulmonary rehabilitation in some settings. As a result, some providers may require extra training in
order to deliver pulmonary rehabilitation for people with bronchiectasis.
 

PICO 9b: Is pulmonary rehabilitation effective in people with

interstitial lung disease?
Background: The interstitial lung diseases are a diverse group of over 200 chronic lung conditions
including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), connective tissue-related ILD, dust-related ILD, granulomatous
ILD (e.g. sarcoidosis) and rarer ILDs such as lymphangioleiomyomatosis. They are characterised by varying
degrees of interstitial inflammation and fibrosis, a restrictive ventilatory pattern and marked exercise-
induced hypoxaemia. People with ILD experience distressing breathlessness on exertion, significant fatigue,
reduced HRQoL, as well as high levels of anxiety and depression. There are limited treatment options for
many ILDs. For instance in IPF, the most common and most lethal ILD, new pharmacotherapies can slow
disease progression but do not provide cure.23 In this setting, interventions that improve functional capacity
and wellbeing may have an important role.

Summary of the evidence: A Cochrane review that examined the evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation
in ILD19 included nine RCTs, of which five were published as abstracts. Compared to usual care, pulmonary
rehabilitation resulted in moderate improvements in overall HRQoL (standardised mean difference [SMD]
0.59, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.98, 3 studies, n=106, low quality evidence). Similar improvements were seen for

15
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

breathlessness and fatigue domains of HRQoL instruments. Compared to usual care, the 6MWT improved
by 44 metres (95% CI 26 to 63, 5 studies, n=162, moderate quality evidence), exceeding the MID. 24 Effects
on HRQoL, symptoms and exercise capacity were no longer evident at six months following program
completion. 19 Quality of the evidence was rated down for risk of bias, particularly lack of assessor blinding,
and for imprecision. Improvements of similar magnitude were reported in a Cochrane review of exercise
training in dust-related respiratory disease, which included a small number of participants with dust-related
ILD. 121 No RCTs have examined the impact of pulmonary rehabilitation on anxiety or depression in this
setting. Single studies have reported effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on 6-month mortality 122 and HCU
123
, with no differences between groups.

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that people with interstitial lung disease
undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).

Justification and implementation: This recommendation places a high value on moderate-to-low

quality evidence of short-term, moderate size effects on outcomes of importance to patients such
as reduced breathlessness and enhanced HRQoL. However, the choice to undertake pulmonary
rehabilitation may be influenced by the relatively short duration of benefit. There is currently no
evidence to suggest that the recommendation should vary according to the type of ILD, or that the
exercise prescription should vary from that provided to people with COPD. Because many people with
ILD use supplemental oxygen and/or experience profound exercise-induced desaturation, consideration
should be given to providing pulmonary rehabilitation in a setting where supplemental oxygen can be
provided during training.

PICO 9c: Is pulmonary rehabilitation effective in people with

pulmonary hypertension?
Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is defined as an increase in the resting mean pulmonary arterial
pressure to at least 25 mmHg on right heart catheterisation. 124 Many people with pulmonary hypertension
experience breathlessness on exertion, however a range of other important symptoms may be present,
including fatigue, dizziness, chest discomfort, chest pain, palpitations, cough, pre-syncope, syncope, lower
limb oedema and abdominal distension. For people from Group 1 pulmonary hypertension (pulmonary
arterial hypertension, PAH) specific pharmacotherapies are available and have markedly improved
prognosis. However, many patients who are stable on medical therapy report significant exercise limitation
and impaired HRQoL. 125, 126

Summary of the evidence: A Cochrane review comparing exercise training to control in PH 20 included
six RCTs (n=206) with varying classifications of PH. All participants were stable on medical therapy. Three
of the RCTs were from the same group in Germany (n=137) and used a 3-week inpatient rehabilitation
program 125, 127, 128, a model that is not available in Australia or New Zealand. HRQoL outcomes showed that,
compared to usual care, exercise training improved the physical function score of the 36-Item Short Form
Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) (MD 6.3 points, 95% CI 0.8 to 13.3, 4 studies, n=118, low quality evidence)
and the mental health score of the SF-36v2 (MD 7.4 points, 95% CI 2.6 to 12.2, 3 studies, n=87, very low
quality evidence). Compared to usual care, the 6MWT improved by 60 metres (95% CI 30 to 90, 5 studies,
n=165, low quality evidence), which exceeded the MID by a large amount. 24 The studies which relied totally
on outpatient based exercise programs 129, 130, consistent with the pulmonary rehabilitation model in
Australia and New Zealand, reported a smaller mean difference in 6MWT favouring the exercise group of
34 metres (95% CI 1 to 67) (n=36), which still exceeded the MID 24. No RCTs evaluated anxiety, depression
or HCU. Quality of the evidence was rated down for risk of bias (lack of random sequence generation or
assessor blinding), indirectness (may represent a selected subgroup of patients with PH) and imprecision
(small numbers of studies and participants contributing to meta-analysis).

None of the studies reported significant adverse events during exercise training such as progression of
symptoms, progression of PH, right heart failure or death. One study reported that three of 15 exercise
group participants had symptoms during training which comprised dizziness without fainting immediately
following cycle ergometer training (n=2) and desaturation from 88% to 74% despite oxygen therapy (n=1).

16
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

125
In a cohort study the same investigators reported that 25 of 183 patients (14%) experienced adverse
events during a 3-week inpatient rehabilitation program including syncope, pre-syncope, acute respiratory
infection, supra-ventricular tachycardia and haemoptysis. 131

Recommendation: The guideline panel recommends that people with pulmonary hypertension
undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).

Justification and implementation: This recommendation places a high value on low quality evidence
of moderate effects on outcomes of importance to patients (quality of life and exercise capacity). Most
evidence relates to inpatient exercise training (68% of participants that have undergone exercise training
in RCTs), which may allow closer monitoring and supervision than in outpatient programs and is not
available in Australia or New Zealand. However no important adverse events have been reported in trials
of outpatient exercise training, so there is currently no evidence to suggest that the recommendation
should vary according to program setting. Patients should be stable on pharmacotherapy prior to
undertaking an exercise training program. There is no evidence to suggest that the recommendation
should vary according to class of PH. International guidelines for PH management currently recommend
that exercise training should be undertaken ‘…by centres experienced in both PH patient care and
rehabilitation of compromised patients’. 124

discussion
These pulmonary rehabilitation guidelines address questions considered by a representative
multidisciplinary panel of experts in the field and the COPD consumer group to be important in the context
of Australian and New Zealand health services. The PICO questions were limited to less than ten and we
recognise that these do not encompass all the important questions pertaining to pulmonary rehabilitation.
Each question was addressed and recommendations formulated using an evidence-based, systematic
process. 21 Strong recommendations were able to be made regarding the effectiveness of pulmonary
rehabilitation in improving exercise capacity, HRQoL and reducing hospital admissions for patients with
COPD. While there are resources required to provide pulmonary rehabilitation, the cost per quality
adjusted life year (QALY) ratios are within the bounds considered to be cost-effective and likely to result
in financial benefits to health services. 132 Given the compelling evidence of the benefits of pulmonary
rehabilitation, policy makers should ensure appropriate strategies are in place to enable equitable access
to pulmonary rehabilitation for people with COPD. Increased availability of pulmonary rehabilitation
programs and referral to these programs are vital to ensure improved patient access and increased patient
participation in this effective evidence-based intervention.

There were gaps in the available evidence to answer some of the questions. In particular, there was no
direct evidence to determine whether pulmonary rehabilitation programs of longer than 8-weeks duration
were more effective than the standard 8-week programs that are common in Australia and New Zealand. 58,
59
Some evidence from meta-analyses of programs of 8-weeks’ duration (in which exercise was supervised
2-3 times per week) provides confidence that this program duration improves exercise capacity and HRQoL.
Limited evidence was available to guide practice for the use of supplemental oxygen during exercise
training in people with COPD who experience EID but who are not prescribed long-term oxygen therapy. As
approximately 47% of patients referred to pulmonary rehabilitation in Australia experience EID, 133 further
high quality research is needed in this area to determine if there are benefits of providing supplemental
oxygen during training and whether these benefits are greater than those that can be achieved with
training on room air in this patient group. Such research will help to determine whether patients who
experience EID need to attend a pulmonary rehabilitation program where supplemental oxygen is
available. Currently, a large Australian RCT is underway examining oxygen supplementation during
exercise training in people COPD who have EID. 134 Optimal interventions for the long-term maintenance
of improvements after completion of a pulmonary rehabilitation program could not be determined, other
than the evidence suggesting that monthly maintenance programs are not worthwhile. Maintenance of the
benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation is an important area of future research and may link with behaviour
change and self-management interventions 109 although these were not addressed in these guidelines.

17
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

While most evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation comes from hospital-based programs, the guideline
review has demonstrated growing evidence for the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in other
venues such as community or home settings. Such settings may improve access to programs by eliminating
some of the known barriers to program attendance, 57 as well as providing patients with choices around
venues such as community-based programs, home-based programs or programs provided in primary
care by private practitioners. Availability of pulmonary rehabilitation programs in a variety of settings
may improve program access and adherence. Appropriate funding is a driver for provision of pulmonary
rehabilitation. Currently in Australia, pulmonary rehabilitation is funded through hospital funding models
based on the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, Tier 2 (non-admitted hospital services) classifications
135
and related pricing.136 While such funding enables some rehabilitation programs to be provided via the
hospital system, major changes in funding models are required to enable the wider provision of pulmonary
rehabilitation in primary care.

In terms of patient education, the guideline only reviewed patient education delivered in a structured group
format, as this is how education has traditionally been delivered in Australian and New Zealand pulmonary
rehabilitation programs. 58, 59 The limited number of RCTs showed no additional benefit of structured
education to a pulmonary rehabilitation program compared to pulmonary rehabilitation alone. A structured
educational format may not be suitable for all patients whose learning styles, needs and cognitive
abilities may vary. It was beyond the scope of the guidelines to further explore this area, in particular self-
management education was not addressed. Our findings do not diminish the importance of education for
people undertaking pulmonary rehabilitation; rather this reinforces the need to establish the most effective
methods to assist individuals with COPD to gain the skills and knowledge they require to optimally manage
their disease.

The review of pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with mild COPD (based on symptoms) found clinically
meaningful benefits in HRQoL and exercise capacity. Traditionally pulmonary rehabilitation programs in
Australia and New Zealand have mainly included people with moderate to severe disease, consistent with
the initial studies underpinning the efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation. 8 Many people with mild COPD in
Australia and New Zealand are managed by their general practitioner in primary care and are not often
referred to pulmonary rehabilitation. However, our review findings demonstrate beneficial outcomes
from pulmonary rehabilitation across the spectrum of disease. While the most cost-effective model for
providing pulmonary rehabilitation for people with mild disease is unknown, it is possible that less costly
community health and fitness programs linked with high quality COPD-specific education programs, which
are becoming more available online, 137 are worth evaluating.

There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic lung diseases
other than COPD. The guidelines have provided reviews of the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation
for patients with bronchiectasis, ILD and pulmonary hypertension. The recommendations in favour of
pulmonary rehabilitation for people with these diagnoses suggest that inclusion criteria should facilitate
the participation of such patients in pulmonary rehabilitation programs in Australia and New Zealand.
Practitioners providing pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with bronchiectasis, ILD and PH should
have adequate skills and knowledge to treat these patient groups and, for some patients, pulmonary
rehabilitation may need to be provided in centres with disease-specific expertise.

Given the higher incidence of COPD in Indigenous Australian 4 and New Zealand communities 5 it is
important that Indigenous people with COPD have access to pulmonary rehabilitation. One barrier to
attendance at pulmonary rehabilitation may be the lack of attention to cultural needs within mainstream
programs. 138 Currently in Australia, no pulmonary rehabilitation programs are specifically designed
to accommodate the cultural needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and there is little
empirical data on what these needs are. In New Zealand, pulmonary rehabilitation programs provided for
Māori people by Māori organisations have identified that attendance is enhanced by the opportunity to
make culturally meaningful connections with other patients and staff within the program, having culturally
appropriate information available and communicating in a common Māori language. 138 It is imperative
that greater efforts are made to ensure safe cultural environments for the delivery of pulmonary
rehabilitation, either by Indigenous health professionals providing the pulmonary rehabilitation programs
or by mainstream programs providing a culturally appropriate environment to encourage and maintain
attendance.

18
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

These pulmonary rehabilitation guidelines have evaluated the evidence related to the questions posed
and provide general recommendations. For information on the practical aspects of providing pulmonary
rehabilitation and individualising interventions for patients, clinicians should access the Pulmonary
Rehabilitation Toolkit 139 which provides extensive information on establishing a pulmonary rehabilitation
program, patient assessment, exercise training, patient education, and patient reassessment.

Acknowledgements
The writing group would like to acknowledge the following: Lung Foundation Australia, particularly
Kirsten Phillips (Director, COPD National Program), Juliet Brown (Executive Officer), Heather Allan (Chief
Executive Officer) and Elizabeth Harper (previous Director COPD National Program) for supporting
the work of the writing group by organising meetings, funding transport and venues for face-to-face
meetings, funding teleconferences and managing referencing; Danielle Favios for formatting documents;
the librarians from the University of Sydney (particularly Elaine Tam) and La Trobe University for their
assistance with the searches for the systematic reviews that were carried out for the Guidelines. The
writing group would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of: the Expert Review Panel of
Professor Christine Jenkins, Professor Christine McDonald, Professor Ian Yang and Dr Kerry Hancock;
and the contribution of Dr William Levack regarding the New Zealand context; the New Zealand
Cardiothoracic Physiotherapy Special Interest Group; and the Australian COPD and Patient Advocate
Group.

Disclaimer: The Writing group was editorially independent from any of the funding sources of Lung
Foundation Australia and did not receive any funding from external sources.

Conflicts of Interest: JA, ZMcK, KJ, RMcN, LS, SJ, CH, VMcD, PF, PC, MB, HC-T, SC, NC, AC, MD, LD, CG, SH,
PJ, AL, RL, TM, CO, MR, JW, SW, AH have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this document.
Individual member conflict of interest statements are available on request to Lung Foundation Australia.

19
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

REFERENCES
1. Toelle BG, Xuan W, Bird TE, Abramson MJ, Atkinson DN, Burton DL, James AL, Jenkins CR, Johns DP, Maguire GP, et al. Respiratory
symptoms and illness in older Australians: the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study. Med J Aust. 2013; 198: 144-8.

2. World Health Organization, 2002. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). http://www.who.int/classifications/
icf/en/. Accessed: 17 May 2016.

3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. How much is spent on COPD? (AIHW disease expenditure database 2008–09 as at
November 2014). http://www.aihw.gov.au/copd/expenditure/. Accessed: 17 May 2016.

4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. Coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Indigenous
Australians. Cat. no. IHW 126. http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129547713. Accessed: 17 May 2016.

5. Telfar Barnard L, Baker M, Pierse N, J. Z. The Impact of Respiratory Disease in New Zealand: 2014 Update. . The Asthma Foundation,
Wellington, 2015.

6. Milne RJ, Beasley R. Hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in New Zealand. N. Z. Med. J. 2015; 128: 23-35.

7. Yang IA, Dabscheck EJ, George J, Jenkins S, McDonald CF, McDonald VM, Smith BJ, Zwar NA. The COPD-X Plan: Australian and New
Zealand Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Lung Foundation Australia, Brisbane, 2016.

8. McCarthy B, Casey D, Devane D, Murphy K, Murphy E, Lacasse Y. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015: CD003793.

9. Puhan MA, GimenoSantos E, Cates CJ, Troosters T. Pulmonary rehabilitation following exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2016(12) CD005305.

10. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2013. Monitoring pulmonary rehabilitation and long-term oxygen therapy for people with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Australia: a discussion paper. http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.
aspx?id=60129545159. Accessed: 17 May 2016.

11. Brooks D, Sottana R, Bell B, Hanna M, Laframboise L, Selvanayagarajah S, Goldstein R. Characterization of pulmonary rehabilitation
programs in Canada in 2005. Can. Respir. J. 2007; 14: 87-92.

12. Bolton CE, Bevan-Smith EF, Blakey JD, Crowe P, Elkin SL, Garrod R, Greening NJ, Heslop K, Hull JH, Man WD, et al. British Thoracic
Society guideline on pulmonary rehabilitation in adults. Thorax. 2013; 68 Suppl 2: ii1-30.

13. Marciniuk DD, Brooks D, Butcher S, Debigare R, Dechman G, Ford G, Pepin V, Reid D, Sheel AW, Stickland MK, et al. Optimizing
pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – practical issues: A Canadian Thoracic Society Clinical Practice
Guideline. Canadian Respiratory Journal : Journal of the Canadian Thoracic Society. 2010; 17: 159-68.

14. Ries AL, Bauldoff GS, Carlin BW, Casaburi R, Emery CF, Mahler DA, Make B, Rochester CL, Zuwallack R, Herrerias C. Pulmonary
Rehabilitation: Joint ACCP/AACVPR Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2007; 131: 4S-42S.

15. Spruit MA, Singh SJ, Garvey C, ZuWallack R, Nici L, Rochester C, Hill K, Holland AE, Lareau SC, Man WDC, et al. An Official American
Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement: Key Concepts and Advances in Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Am. J. Respir. Crit.
Care Med. 2013; 188: e13-e64.

16. Brouwers M, Kho ME, Browman GP, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Hanna S, Makarski J, AGREE. obot. Next Steps Consortium. AGREE
II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2010; 182: E839-42.

17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group. P. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA
Statement. . PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.

18. Lee AL, Hill CJ, McDonald CF, Holland AE. Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Individuals With Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis: A Systematic
Review. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2016 doi 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.05.017.

19. Dowman L, Hill CJ, Holland AE. Pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 10: CD006322.

20. Morris NR, Kermeen FD, Holland AE. Exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst.
Rev 2017, Issue 1. CD011285

21. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Vandvik PO, Meerpohl J, et
al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices.
2: Clinical practice guidelines. Br. Med. J. 2016; 353: i2089.

20
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

22. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxmane AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, Nasser M, Meerpohl J, Post PN, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines:
14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 719-
25.

23. Raghu G, Rochwerg B, Zhang Y, Garcia CA, Azuma A, Behr J, Brozek JL, Collard HR, Cunningham W, Homma S, et al. An Official ATS/
ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline: Treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. An Update of the 2011 Clinical Practice Guideline.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2015; 192: e3-19.

24. Holland AE, Spruit MA, Troosters T, Puhan MA, Pepin V, Saey D, McCormack MC, Carlin BW, Sciurba FC, Pitta F, et al. An official
European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Technical Standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur.
Respir. J. 2014; 44: 1428-46.

25. Jones PW. Interpreting thresholds for a clinically significant change in health status in asthma and COPD. Eur. Respir. J. 2002; 19: 398-
404.

26. Lacasse Y, Cates CJ, McCarthy B, Welsh EJ. This Cochrane Review is closed: deciding what constitutes enough research and where next
for pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015: ED000107.

27. Pisa G, Freytag S, Schandry R. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients’ disease-related preferences : a study using
conjoint analysis. Patient. 2013; 6: 93-101.

28. Bereza BG, Troelsgaard Nielsen A, Valgardsson S, Hemels ME, Einarson TR. Patient preferences in severe COPD and asthma: a
comprehensive literature review. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2015; 10: 739-44.

29. Man WD-C, Polkey MI, Donaldson N, Gray BJ, Moxham J. Community pulmonary rehabilitation after hospitalisation for acute exacerbations
of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomised controlled study. Br. Med. J. 2004; 329: 1209

30. Murphy N, Bell C, Costello RW. Extending a home from hospital care programme for COPD exacerbations to include pulmonary
rehabilitation. Respir. Med. 2005; 99: 1297-302.

31. Seymour JM, Moore L, Jolley CJ, Ward K, Creasey J, Steier JS, Yung B, Man WD-C, Hart N, Polkey MI, et al. Outpatient pulmonary
rehabilitation following acute exacerbations of COPD. Thorax. 2010; 65: 423-8.

32. Ko FWS, Dai DLK, Ngai J, Tung A, Ng S, Lai K, Fong R, Lau H, Tam W, Hui DSC. Effect of early pulmonary rehabilitation on health care
utilization and health status in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of COPD. Respirology. 2011; 16: 617-24.

33. Deepak TH, Mohapatra PR, Janmeja AK, Sood P, Gupta M. Outcome of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients after acute exacerbation of
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Indian J. Chest Dis. Allied Sci. 2014; 56: 7-12.

34. Haughney J, Partridge MR, Vogelmeier C, Larsson T, Kessler R, Stahl E, Brice R, Lofdahl C-G. Exacerbations of COPD; quantifying the
patient’s perspective using discrete choice modelling. Eur. Respir. J. 2005; 26: 623-9.

35. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Global strategy for the diagnosis, management and prevention of chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease. 2015.

36. Seemungal RAR, Donaldson GC, Bhowmik A, Jeffries DJ, Wedzicha JA. Time course and recovery of exacerbations in patients with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2000; 161: 1608-13.

37. Seemungal RAR, Donaldson GC, Paul EA, Bestall JC, Jeffries DJ, Wedzicha JA. Effect of exacerbation on quality of life in patients with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1998; 157: 1418-22.

38. Soler-Cataluna JJ, Martinez-Garcia MA, Sanchez PR, Salcedo E, Navarro M, Ochando R. Severe acute exacerbations and mortality in
patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 2005; 60: 925-31.

39. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016. COPD - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. http://www.aihw.gov.au/copd/. Accessed:
17 May 2016.

40. Sullivan SD, Ramsey SD, Lee TA. The economic burden of COPD. Chest. 2000; 117(2 Suppl): 5S-9S.

41. Toy EL, Gallagher KF, Stanley EL, Swensen AR, Duh MS. The economic impact of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
and exacerbation definition. A review. Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 2010; 7: 214-28.

42. National Health Performance Authority, 2015. Hospital Performance: Costs of acute admitted patients in public hospitals in 2011–12.
www.myhospitals.gov.au/docs/default-source/our-report-pdfs/hp_costsofacuteadmittedpatients_2011_12_rpt.pdf. Accessed: 26 February
2016.

43. Dal Negro RW, Bonadiman L, Turco P. Prevalence of different comorbidities in COPD patients by gender and GOLD stage. Multidiscip
Respir Med. 2015; 10: 24.

21
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

44. Mannino DM, Higuchi K, Yu TC, Zhou H, Li Y, Tian H, Suh K. Economic Burden of COPD in the Presence of Comorbidities. Chest. 2015;
148: 138-50.

45. Griffiths TL, Burr ML, Campbell JA, Lewis-Jenkins V, Mullins J, Shiels K, Turner-Lawlor PJ, Payne N, Newcombe RG, Lonescu AA, et al.
Results at 1 year of outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation. A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000; 355(9201): 362-8.

46. Guell R, Casan P, Belda J, Sangenis M, Morante F, Guyatt GH, Sanchis J. Long-term effects of outpatient rehabilitation of COPD. A
randomized trial. Chest. 2000; 117: 976-83.

47. Boxall AM, Barclay L, Sayers A, Caplan GA. Managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the community. A randomized controlled
trial of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation for elderly housebound patients. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 2005; 25: 378-85.

48. Ninot G, Moullec G, Picot MC, Jaussent A, Hayot M, Desplan M, Brun JF, Mercier J, Prefaut C. Cost-saving effect of supervised exercise
associatied to COPD self-management education program. Respir. Med. 2011; 105: 377-85.

49. van Wetering CR, Hoogendoorn M, Mol SJ, Rutten-van Molken MP, Schols AM. Short- and long-term efficacy of a community-based
COPD management programme in less advanced COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2010; 65: 7-13.

50. McCann KA, Lee AL, Denehy L. Does community based pulmonary rehabilitation provide health care utilization and cost saving benefits?
Aust. J. Physiother., 2011; 335.

51. Blackstock CC, Hill CJ, Webster KE, McDonald CF. Comparable improvements achieved in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease through
pulmonary rehabilitation with and without a structured educational intervention. A randomized controlled trial. Respirology. 2014; 19: 193-
202.

52. Cecins NM, Geelhoed E, Jenkins SC. Reduction in hospitalisation following pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD. Aust. Health
Rev. 2008; 32: 415-22.

53. Hui KP, Hewitt AB. A simple pulmonary rehabilitation program improves health outcomes and reduces hospital utilization in patients with
COPD. Chest. 2003; 124: 94-7.

54. Rasekaba TM, Williams E, Hsu-Hage B. Can a chronic disease management pulmonary rehabilitation for COPD reduce acute rural
hospital utilization? Chron. Respir. Dis. 2009; 6: 157-63.

55. Walsh JR, Pegg JL, Yerkovich ST, Morris N, McKeough Z, Comans T, Paratz J, Chambers D. Health care utilisation benefits following
pulmonary rehabilitation. Respirology. 2015; 20(S2): 102.

56. Cecins NM, Landers H, S. J. Community-based pulmonary rehabilitation in a non-healthcare facility is feasible and effective. Chron.
Respir. Dis. 2016.

57. Keating A, Lee A, Holland AE. What prevents people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from attending pulmonary rehabilitation?
A systematic review. Chron. Respir. Dis. 2011; 8: 89-99.

58. Johnston CL, Maxwell LJ, Alison JA. Pulmonary rehabilitation in Australia: a national survey. Physiotherapy. 2011; 97: 284-90.

59. Levack WM, Weatherall M, Reeve JC, Mans C, Mauro A. Uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation in New Zealand by people with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease in 2009. N. Z. Med. J. 2012; 125: 23-33.

60. Behnke M, Jorres RA, Kirsten D, Magnussen H. Clinical benefits of a combined hospital and home-based exercise programme over 18
months in patients with severe COPD. Monaldi Arch. Chest Dis. 2003; 59: 44-51.

61. Ghanem M, E.A EL, Mehany M, Tolba K. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation program: Effect on exercise tolerance and quality of life in
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Ann. Thorac. Med. 2010; 5: 18-25.

62. Singh V, Khandelwal DC, Khandelwal R, Abusaria S. Pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Indian J. Chest Dis. Allied Sci. 2003; 45: 13-7.

63. Fernandez AM, Pascual J, Ferrando C, Arnal A, Vergara I, Sevila V. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in very severe COPD: is it safe
and useful? J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. Prev. 2009; 29: 325-31.

64. Jones D, Thomson R, MR S. Physical exercise and resistive breathing training in severe chronic airways obstruction: are they effective?
Eur. J. Respir. Dis. 1985; 67: 159-66.

65. Hernandez MT, Rubio TM, Ruiz FO, Riera HS, Gil RS, Gomez JC. Results of a home-based training program for patients with COPD.
Chest. 2000; 118: 106-14.

66. Booker H. Exercise training and breathing control in patients with chronic airflow limitation. Physiotherapy. 1984; 70: 258-60.

22
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

67. Liu X, Tan J, Wang T, Zhang Q, Zhang M, Yao L, Chen J. Effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Rehabil. Nurs. 2014; 39: 36-59.

68. Vieira D, Maltais F, Bourbeau J. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Curr. Opin. Pulm.
Med. 2010; 16: 134-43.

69. Holland AE, Mahal A, Hill CJ, Lee AL, Burge AT, Cox NS, Moore R, Nicolson C, O’Halloran P, Lahham A, et al. Home-based rehabilitation
for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using minimal resources: a randomised, controlled equivalence trial. Thorax. 2016; 72: 57-65.

70. Guell MR, De Lucas P, Galdiz JB, Montemayor T, Gonzalez-Moro JMR, Gorostiza A, Ortega F, Bellon JM, Guyatt G. Home vs hospital-
based pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A Spanish multicenter trial. Arch. Bronconeumol.
2008; 44: 512-8.

71. Maltais F, Bourbeau J, Shapiro S, Lacasse Y, Perrault H, Baltzan M, Hernandez P, Rouleau M, Julien M, Parenteau S, et al. Effects of
home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2008;
149: 869-78.

72. Mendes de Oliveira JC., Studart Leitão Filho FS, Malosa Sampaio LM, Negrinho de Oliveira AC, Pastrello Hirata R, Costa D, Donner CF,
LV dO. Outpatient vs. home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD: a randomized controlled trial. Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine.
2010; 5: 401-8.

73. Puente-Maestu L, Sánz M, Sánz P, Cubillo J, Mayol J, Casaburi R. Comparison of effects of supervised versus self-monitored training
programmes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2000; 15: 517-25.

74. Strijbos JH, Postma DS, van Altena R, Gimeno F, Koeter GH. A comparison between an outpatient hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation
program and a home-care pulmonary rehabilitation program in patients with COPD. A follow-up of 18 months. Chest. 1996; 109: 366-72.

75. Cambach W, Chadwick-Straver R, Wagenaar R, Keimpema A, Kemper H. The effects of a community-based pulmonary rehabilitation
programme on exercise tolerance and quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. Eur. Respir. J. 1997; 10: 104-13.

76. Casey D, Murphy K, Devane D, Cooney A, McCarthy B, Mee L, Newell J, O’Shea E, Scarrott C, Gillespie P, et al. The effectiveness of
a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for improving the health status of people with moderate and severe chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial. Thorax. 2013; 2013: 922-8.

77. Faulkner J, Walshaw E, Campbell J, Jones R, Taylor R, Price D, Taylor AH. The feasibility of recruiting patients with early COPD to a pilot
trial assessing the effects of a physical activity intervention. Primary Care Respiratory Journal. 2010; 19: 124-30.

78. Gottlieb V, Lyngso AM, Nybo B, Frolich A, Backer V. Pulmonary rehabilitation for moderate COPD (GOLD 2)--does it have an effect?
COPD. 2011; 8: 380-6.

79. Roman M, Larraz C, Gomez A, Ripoll J, Mir I, Miranda EZ, Macho A, Thomas V, Esteva M. Efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients
with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Fam. Pract. 2013; 14: 21.

80. Amin S, Abrazado M, Quinn M, Storer T, Tseng C, Cooper C. A controlled study of community-based exercise training in patients with
moderate COPD. BMC Pulm. Med. 2014; 14.

81. Golmohammadi K, Jacobs P, Sin DD. Economic evaluation of a community-based pulmonary rehabilitation program for chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. Lung. 2004; 182: 187-96.

82. Liu X-D, Jin H-Z, Ng BH-P, Gu Y-H, Wu Y-C, Lu G. Therapeutic effects of qigong in patients with COPD: a randomized controlled trial. Hong
Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2012; 22: 38-46.

83. Riario-Sforza GG, Incorvaia C, Paterniti F, Pessina L, Caligiuri R, Pravettoni C, Di Marco F, Centanni S. Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation
on exercise capacity in patients with COPD: a number needed to treat study. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2009; 4: 315-9.

84. Rugbjerg M, Iepsen UW, Jorgensen KJ, Lange P. Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic
review with meta-analyses. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2015; 10: 791-801.

85. Jones PW. St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MCID. COPD. 2005; 2: 75-9.

86. de Souto Araujo ZT, de Miranda Silva Nogueira PA, Cabral EE, de Paula Dos Santos L, da Silva IS, Ferreira GM. Effectiveness of low-
intensity aquatic exercise on COPD: a randomized clinical trial. Respir. Med. 2012; 106: 1535-43.

87. Gurgun A, Deniz S, Argin M, Karapolat H. Effects of nutritional supplementation combined with conventional pulmonary rehabilitation in
muscle-wasted chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective, randomized and controlled study. Respirology. 2013; 18: 495-500.

88. Karapolat H, Atasever A, Atamaz F, Kirazli Y, Elmas F, Erdinc E. Do the benefits gained using a short-term pulmonary rehabilitation
program remain in COPD patients after participation? Lung. 2007; 185: 221-5.

23
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

89. Lake FR, Henderson K, Briffa T, Openshaw J, Musk AW. Upper-limb and lower-limb exercise training in patients with chronic airflow
obstruction. Chest. 1990; 97: 1077-82.

90. McNamara RJ, McKeough ZJ, McKenzie DK, Alison JA. Water-based exercise in COPD with physical comorbidities: a randomised
controlled trial. Eur. Respir. J. 2013; 41: 1284-91.

91. Ringbaek TJ, Broendum E, Hemmingsen L, Lybeck K, Nielsen D, Andersen C, Lange P. Rehabilitation of patients with chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. Exercise twice a week is not sufficient! Respir. Med. 2000; 94: 150-4.

92. Theander K, Jakobsson P, Jorgensen N, Unosson M. Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on fatigue, functional status and health perceptions
in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2009; 23: 125-36.

93. Guell R, Casan P, Sangenis M, Morante F, Belda J, Guyatt GH. Quality of life in patients with chronic respiratory disease: the Spanish
version of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). Eur. Respir. J. 1998; 11: 55-60.

94. Paz-Diaz H, Montes de Oca M, Lopez JM, Celli BR. Pulmonary rehabilitation improves depression, anxiety, dyspnea and health status in
patients with COPD. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007; 86: 30-6.

95. Brooks D, Krip B, Mangovski-Alzamora S, Goldstein R. The effect of postrehabilitation programmes among individuals with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2002; 20: 20-9.

96. Ries AL, Kaplan RM, Myers R, Prewitt LM. Maintenance after pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic lung disease. A randomised trial. Am. J.
Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2003; 167: 880-8.

97. Bestall JC, Paul EA, Garrod R, Garnham R, Jones PW, Wedzicha JA. Longitudinal trends in exercise capacity and health status after
pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD. Respir. Med. 2003; 97: 173-80.

98. Engstrom CP, Persson LO, Larsson S, Sullivan M. Long-term effects of a pulmonary rehabilitation programme in outpatients with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled study. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 1999; 31: 207-13.

99. Ringbaek TJ, Brondum E, Martinez G, Thogersen J, Lange P. Long-term effects of 1-year maintenance training on physical functioning and
health status in patients with COPD: a randomised controlled study. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. Prev. 2010; 30: 47-52.

100. Wijkstra PJ, TenVergert EM, van Altena R, Otten V, Kraan J, Postma DS, Koeter GH. Long term benefits of rehabilitation at home on quality
of life and exercise tolerance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 1995; 50: 824-8.

101. Wilson AM, Browne P, Olive S, Clark A, Galey P, Dix E, Woodhouse H, Robinson S, Wilson EC, Staunton L. The effects of maintenance
schedules following pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ
Open. 2015; 5: e005921.

102. Swerts PM, Kretzers LM, Terpstra-Lindeman E, Verstappen FT, Wouters EF. Exercise reconditioning in the rehabilitation of patients with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a short- and long-term analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1990; 71: 570-3.

103. Spencer LM, Alison JA, McKeough ZJ. Maintaining benefits following pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial. Eur. Respir.
J. 2010; 35: 571-7.

104. Spencer LM, Alison JA, McKeough ZJ. A Survey of Opinions and Attitudes Toward Exercise Following a 12-month Maintenance Exercise
Program for People with COPD. Cardiopulm. Phys. Ther. J. 2013; 24: 30-5.

105. de Sousa Pinto JM, Martin-Nogueras AM, Morano MT, Macedo TE, Arenillas JI, Troosters T. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
patients’ experience with pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review of qualitative research. Chron. Respir. Dis. 2013; 10: 141-57.

106. Norweg AM, Whiteson J, Malgady R, Mola A, Rey M. The effectiveness of different combinations of pulmonary rehabilitation program
components: a randomized controlled trial. Chest. 2005; 128: 663-72.

107. Crisafulli E, Loschi S, Beneventi C, De Biase A, Tazzioli B, Papetti A, Lorenzi C, Clini EM. Learning impact of education during pulmonary
rehabilitation program. An observational short-term cohort study. Monaldi Arch. Chest Dis. 2010; 73: 64-71.

108. Cosgrove D, Macmahon J, Bourbeau J, Bradley JM, O’Neill B. Facilitating education in pulmonary rehabilitation using the living well with
COPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation: a process evaluation. BMC Pulm. Med. 2013; 13: 50.

109. Effing TW, Vercoulen JH, Bourbeau J, Trappenburg J, Lenferink A, Cafarella P, Coultas D, Meek P, van der Valk P, Bischoff EW, et al.
Definition of a COPD self-management intervention: International Expert Group consensus. Eur. Respir. J. 2016; 48: 46-54.

110. Jenkins S, Hill K, Cecins NM. State of the art: how to set up a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Respirology. 2010; 15: 1157-73.

111. Cotes J., J G. Effect of oxygen on exercise ability in chronic respiratory insufficiency; use of portable apparatus. Lancet. 1956; 270: 872-6.

24
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

112. Rooyackers JM, Dekhuijzen PNR, Van Herwaarden CLA, Folgering HTM. Training with supplemental oxygen in patients with COPD and
hypoxaemia at peak performance. Eur. Respir. J. 1997; 10: 1278-84.

113. Wadell K, Henriksson-Larsen K, Lundgren R. Physical training with and without oxygen in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease and exercise-induced hypoxaemia. J. Rehabil. Med. 2001; 33: 200-5.

114. Garrod R, Paul EA, Wedzicha JA. Supplemental oxygen during pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD with exercise hypoxaemia.
Thorax. 2000; 55: 539-43.

115. Dyer F, Callaghan J, Cheema K, Bott J. Ambulatory oxygen improves the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in selected patients with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chron. Respir. Dis. 2012; 9: 83-91.

116. Martinez-Garcia MA, Soler-Cataluna JJ, Perpina-Tordera M, Roman-Sanchez P, Soriano J. Factors associated with lung function decline
in adult patients with stable non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Chest. 2007; 132: 1565-72.

117. Chang AB, Bell SC, Torzillo PJ, King PT, Maguire GP, Byrnes CA, Holland AE, O’Mara P, Grimwood K, extended voting g. Chronic
suppurative lung disease and bronchiectasis in children and adults in Australia and New Zealand Thoracic Society of Australia and New
Zealand guidelines. Med. J. Aust. 2015; 202: 130.

118. Lee AL, Hill CJ, Cecins N, Jenkins S, McDonald CF, Burge AT, Rautela L, Stirling RG, Thompson PJ, Holland AE. The short and long term
effects of exercise training in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis--a randomised controlled trial. Respir. Res. 2014; 15: 44.

119. Mandal P, Sidhu MK, Kope L, Pollock W, Stevenson LM, Pentland JL, Turnbull K, Mac Quarrie S, Hill AT. A pilot study of pulmonary
rehabilitation and chest physiotherapy versus chest physiotherapy alone in bronchiectasis. Respir. Med. 2012; 106: 1647-54.

120. Newall C, Stockley RA, Hill SL. Exercise training and inspiratory muscle training in patients with bronchiectasis. Thorax. 2005; 60: 943-8.

121. Dale MT, McKeough ZJ, Troosters T, Bye P, Alison JA. Exercise training to improve exercise capacity and quality of life in people with non-
malignant dust-related respiratory diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 11: CD009385.

122. Holland AE, Hill CJ, Conron M, Munro P, McDonald CF. Short term improvement in exercise capacity and symptoms following exercise
training in interstitial lung disease. Thorax. 2008; 63: 549-54.

123. Vainshelboim B, Oliveira J, Fox BD, Soreck Y, Fruchter O, Kramer MR. Long-Term Effects of a 12-Week Exercise Training Program on
Clinical Outcomes in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Lung. 2015; 193: 345-54.

124. Galie N, Humbert M, Vachiery JL, Gibbs S, Lang I, Torbicki A, Simonneau G, Peacock A, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Beghetti M, et al. 2015
ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: The Joint Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment
of Pulmonary Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS): Endorsed by:
Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT).
Eur. Heart J. 2016; 37: 67-119.

125. Mereles D, Ehlken N, Kreuscher S, Ghofrani S, Hoeper MM, Halank M, Meyer FJ, Karger G, Buss J, Juenger J, et al. Exercise and
respiratory training improve exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with severe chronic pulmonary hypertension. Circulation. 2006;
114: 1482-9.

126. Shafazand S, Goldstein MK, Doyle RL, Hlatky MA, Gould MK. Health-related quality of life in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Chest. 2004; 126: 1452-9.

127. Ley S, Fink C, Risse F, Ehlken N, Fischer C, Ley-Zaporozhan J, Kauczor HU, Klose H, Gruenig E. Magnetic resonance imaging to assess
the effect of exercise training on pulmonary perfusion and blood flow in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Eur. Radiol. 2013; 23: 324-
31.

128. Ehlken N, Lichtblau M, Klose H, Weidenhammer J, Fischer C, Nechwatal R, Uiker S, Halank M, Olsson K, Seeger W, et al. Exercise
training improves peak oxygen consumption and haemodynamics in patients with severe pulmonary arterial hypertension and inoperable
chronic thrombo-embolic pulmonary hypertension: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Eur. Heart J. 2016; 37: 35-44.

129. Chan L, Chin LM, Kennedy M, Woolstenhulme JG, Nathan SD, Weinstein AA, Connors G, Weir NA, Drinkard B, Lamberti J, et al. Benefits
of intensive treadmill exercise training on cardiorespiratory function and quality of life in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Chest.
2013; 143: 333-43.

130. Ganderton L, Jenkins S, Gain K, Fowler R, Winship P, Lunt D, Gabbay E. Effects of exercise training on exercise capacity and quality of
life in pulmonary arterial hypertension [abstract]. Respirology. 2013; 18: 74.

131. Grunig E, Lichtblau M, Ehlken N, Ghofrani HA, Reichenberger F, Staehler G, Halank M, Fischer C, Seyfarth HJ, Klose H, et al. Safety and
efficacy of exercise training in various forms of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J. 2012; 40: 84-92.

25
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

132. Griffiths T, Phillips C, Davies S, Burr M, Campbell I. Cost effectiveness of an outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation
programme. Thorax. 2001; 56: 779-84.

133. Jenkins S, Cecins N. Six-minute walk test: observed adverse events and oxygen desaturation in a large cohort of patients with chronic lung
disease. Intern. Med. J. 2011; 41: 416-22.

134. Alison JA, McKeough ZJ, Jenkins SC, Holland AE, Hill K, Morris NR, Leung RW, Williamson KA, Spencer LM, Hill CJ, et al. A randomised
controlled trial of supplemental oxygen versus medical air during exercise training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease:
supplemental oxygen in pulmonary rehabilitation trial (SuppORT) (Protocol). BMC Pulm. Med. 2016; 16: 25.

135. Commonwealth of Australia, 2015. Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, The Pricing Framework for Australian Public Hospital Services
2016-17. www.ihpa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net636/f/publications/pricing_framework_2016-17_0.pdf. Accessed: 17 May 2016.

136. Commonwealth of Australia, 2015. Tier 2 Non-admitted services definitions manual 2015-16– Version 4.0. www.ihpa.gov.au/sites/g/files/
net636/f/publications/tier_2_non-admitted_services_definitions_manual_2016-17.pdf. Accessed: 17 May 2016.

137. Lung Foundation Australia, 2016. COPD Online Patient Education Program. http://lungfoundation.com.au/patient-support/living-with-a-
lung-condition/pulmonary-rehabilitation-2/c-o-p-e-copd-online-patient-education-program/. Accessed: 17 May 2016.

138. Levack WM, Jones B, Grainger R, Boland P, Brown M, TR I. Whakawhanaungatanga: the importance of culturally meaningful connections
to improve uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation by Maˉori with COPD – a qualitative study. International Journal of COPD. 2016; 11: 489-501.

139. Alison JA, Barrack C, Cafarella P, Frith P, Hanna C, Hill C, Holland AE, Jenkins SC, Meinhardt J, F. MC, et al., 2016. Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Toolkit. http://pulmonaryrehab.com.au/welcome.asp. Accessed: 17 May 2016.

26
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Table 1: PICO questions

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

fatigue)
Pulmonary Exercise capacity
a. Stable COPD Usual care
rehabilitation
1. Is pulmonary Mortality
rehabilitation Anxiety and depression
effective compared
with usual care in HRQoL (including dyspnoea &
Pulmonary fatigue)
patients with COPD? b. Following an rehabilitation (non-
exacerbation of inpatient) within 2-4 Usual care Exercise capacity
COPD weeks of hospital Hospital readmissions
discharge
Mortality

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

Hospital admissions
Length of stay
2. Does pulmonary Stable COPD Total bed days
rehabilitation or following an Pulmonary
Usual care Exacerbations
affect health care exacerbation of rehabilitation
utilisation? COPD Emergency department
presentations
General practitioner visits

3. Is a home-based or community pulmonary rehabilitation program as effective as a hospital-based

pulmonary rehabilitation program?

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

3a. Is home- fatigue)
based pulmonary Stable COPD
Home-based Exercise capacity
rehabilitation more or following an
pulmonary Usual care
effective than usual exacerbation of
rehabilitation
Mortality
care for people with COPD Anxiety and depression
COPD?
Healthcare utilisation

3b. Is home- HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

based pulmonary fatigue)
Stable COPD
rehabilitation as Hospital-based Exercise capacity
or following an Pulmonary
effective as hospital- pulmonary
exacerbation of rehabilitation Mortality
based pulmonary COPD
rehabilitation
rehabilitation for Anxiety and depression
people with COPD? Healthcare utilisation

HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

3c. Is community- fatigue)
based pulmonary Stable COPD
Community- Exercise capacity
rehabilitation more or following an
based pulmonary Usual care
effective than usual exacerbation of
rehabilitation
Mortality
care for people with COPD Anxiety and depression
COPD?
Healthcare utilisation

27
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

4. In people with HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

mild disease fatigue)
severity, is Exercise capacity
Pulmonary
pulmonary Stable COPD Usual care
rehabilitation Mortality
rehabilitation more
effective than usual Anxiety and depression
care? Healthcare utilisation

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

5. Are programs fatigue)
Stable COPD Pulmonary
of longer duration Pulmonary Exercise capacity
or following an rehabilitation
more effective than rehabilitation
exacerbation of of longer than Mortality
the standard eight- COPD 8-weeks
of 8-weeks
week programs? Anxiety and depression
Healthcare utilisation

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

6. Does ongoing
supervised
HRQoL (including dyspnoea &
exercise at a lower fatigue)
frequency than the
initial pulmonary Exercise capacity
Maintenance
Stable COPD Usual care
rehabilitation exercise program Mortality
program, maintain Anxiety and depression
exercise capacity
Healthcare utilisation
and quality of life to
12 months?

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

fatigue)
7. Does a structured Pulmonary Exercise capacity
Pulmonary
Stable COPD rehabilitation
education program rehabilitation Mortality
or following an without a
enhance the benefits with a structured
exacerbation of structured Anxiety and depression
of pulmonary COPD
education
education
rehabilitation? program Healthcare utilisation
program
Disease knowledge
Self-efficacy

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

8. Do patients who
experience oxygen
HRQoL (including dyspnoea &
desaturation fatigue)
during exercise COPD with Pulmonary Pulmonary
have greater Exercise capacity
exercise- rehabilitation rehabilitation
improvements induced oxygen with oxygen without oxygen Mortality
if oxygen desaturation supplementation supplementation
Anxiety and depression
supplementation
Healthcare utilisation
is provided during
training?

28
 Australian and New Zealand Pulmonary Rehabilitation CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

9. Is pulmonary rehabilitation effective in chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD?

PICO Question Population Intervention Comparator Outcome

HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

fatigue)
9a. Is pulmonary
rehabilitation Exercise capacity
Pulmonary
Bronchiectasis Usual care
effective in people rehabilitation Healthcare utilisation
with bronchiectasis? Anxiety and depression
Mortality

HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

9b. Is pulmonary fatigue)
rehabilitation Bronchiectasis Exercise capacity
Pulmonary
effective in people Interstitial lung Usual care
rehabilitation Healthcare utilisation
with interstitial lung disease
disease? Anxiety and depression
Mortality

HRQoL (including dyspnoea &

9c. Is pulmonary fatigue)
rehabilitation Exercise capacity
Pulmonary Pulmonary
effective in people Usual care
hypertension rehabilitation Healthcare utilisation
with pulmonary
hypertension? Anxiety and depression
Mortality

PICO = Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HRQoL =
health-related quality of life.

29
 The Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand Ltd
Suite 405, Level 4,
5 Hunter Street,
Sydney NSW 2000
P +61 2 9222 6200
F +61 2 9221 0438
E [email protected]

www.thoracic.org.au

Level 2, 11 Finchley St, Milton QLD 4064

PO Box 1949, Milton QLD 4064
T: 07 3251 3600
F: 07 3368 3564
E: [email protected]

Free call 1800 654 301

ABN 36 051 131 901

www.lungfoundation.com.au