Inspiratory muscle training is recommended for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with inspiratory muscle weakness. Clinical interpretation of changes in inspiratory muscle strength could be helped by the determination of cut-off values. The aim of this study was to estimate the minimal important difference for inspiratory muscle strength assessed with maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) in people with COPD.
Design
Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (EMI2 study) including people with severe to very severe COPD undergoing a pulmonary rehabilitation program was conducted. The determination of the minimal important difference was realized using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods.
Setting
The study includes patients admitted to the rehabilitation program unit of the Centre Hospitalier des Pays de Morlaix (Morlaix, France) between March 5, 2014 and September 8, 2016.
Participants
Seventy-three people with severe to very severe COPD (age 62.2 ± 8.0 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 36.4 ± 9.5% of theoretical) were analyzed.
Intervention
Patients followed a standardized pulmonary rehabilitation program 5 days a week for 4 weeks. The program included aerobic training, ground-based outdoor walking training, and strengthening of lower and upper limb muscles.
Main measures
At the end of the pulmonary rehabilitation program, MIP improved by 14.8 ± 14.9 cmH2O (p < 0.05). Regarding the anchor-based method, only the modified Medical Research Council was selected as an appropriate anchor. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis reported a minimal important difference of 13.5 cmH2O (sensibility: 75% specificity: 67.5%). Using distribution-based methods, the estimate of minimal important difference was 7.9 cmH2O (standard error of measurement method) and 10.9 cmH2O (size effect method).
Results
The estimations proposed by this study ranged from 7.9 to 13.5 cmH2O.
Conclusions
The measurement of minimal important difference is a simple tool for assessing the changes of inspiratory muscle strength during a pulmonary rehabilitation program. We propose a minimal important difference of 13.5 cmH2O for the improvement of MIP. Further studies are needed to confirm this estimation.
RehmanAUHassaliMAAMuhammadSA, et al.The economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Europe: results from a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Health Econ2020; 21: 181–194.
PutchaNDrummondMBWiseRA, et al.Comorbidities and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: prevalence, influence on outcomes, and management. Semin Respir Crit Care Med2015; 36: 575–591.
5.
SpruitMASinghSJGarveyC, et al.An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2013; 188: e13–e64.
6.
BeaumontMForgetPCouturaudF, et al.Effects of inspiratory muscle training in COPD patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Respir J2018; 12: 2178–2188.
7.
LangerDHendriksEBurtinC, et al.A clinical practice guideline for physiotherapists treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease based on a systematic review of available evidence. Clin Rehabil2009; 23: 445–462.
8.
LavenezianaPAlbuquerqueAAlivertiA, et al.ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing at rest and during exercise. Eur Respir J2019; 53: 1801214.
9.
GosselinkRDe VosJvan den HeuvelSP, et al.Impact of inspiratory muscle training in patients with COPD: what is the evidence?Eur Respir J2011; 37: 416–425.
10.
LottersFvan TolBKwakkelG, et al.Effects of controlled inspiratory muscle training in patients with COPD: a meta-analysis. Eur Respir J2002; 20: 570–577.
11.
BeaumontMMialonPBer-MoyCL, et al.Inspiratory muscle training during pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Chron Respir Dis2015; 12: 305–312.
12.
SPLF. Réhabilitation du patient atteint de BPCO. Rev Mal Respir2010; 27: S36–S69.
13.
IwakuraMOkuraKKubotaM, et al.Estimation of minimal clinically important difference for quadriceps and inspiratory muscle strength in older outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective cohort study. Phys Ther Res2021; 24: 35–42.
14.
WrightAHannonJHegedusEJ, et al.Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther2012; 20: 160–166.
15.
SedaghatAR. Understanding the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2019; 161: 551–560.
16.
TroostersT. How important is a minimal difference?Eur Respir J2011; 37: 755–756.
17.
BeaumontMMialonPLe BerC, et al.Effects of inspiratory muscle training on dyspnoea in severe COPD patients during pulmonary rehabilitation: controlled randomised trial. Eur Respir J2018; 51: 1701107.
18.
VestboJHurdSSAgustíAG, et al.Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2013; 187: 347–365.
19.
GibsonGJWhitelawWSiafakasN, et al.ATS/ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2002; 166: 518–624.
20.
PerezT. Comment explorer en première intention les muscles respiratoires ?Rev Mal Respir2005; 22: 37–46.
21.
HillKCecinsNMEastwoodPR, et al.Inspiratory muscle training for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a practical guide for clinicians. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2010; 91: 1466–1470.
22.
RevickiDHaysRDCellaD, et al.Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol2008; 61: 102–109.
23.
BestallJCPaulEAGarrodR, et al.Usefulness of the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale as a measure of disability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax1999; 54: 581–586.
24.
MahlerDAWardJWatermanLA, et al.Patient-reported dyspnea in COPD reliability and association with stage of disease. Chest2009; 136: 1473–1479.
25.
Araújo OliveiraLAAndradeLMarquesA. Minimal clinically important difference and predictive validity of the mMRC and mBorg in acute exacerbations of COPD. Eur Resp J2017; 50: PA4705. https://doi.org/10.1183/1393003.congress-2017.PA4705
26.
RiesAL. Minimally clinically important difference for the UCSD shortness of breath questionnaire, Borg scale, and visual analog scale. COPD2005; 2: 105–110.
27.
EkströmMPBornefalkHSköldCM, et al.Minimal clinically important differences and feasibility of dyspnea-12 and the multidimensional dyspnea profile in cardiorespiratory disease. J Pain Symptom Manage2020; 60: 968–975.e1.
28.
JonesPW. St. George’s respiratory questionnaire: MCID. COPD2005; 2: 75–79.
29.
BouchetCGuilleminFHoang ThiTH, et al.. Validation of the St George's questionnaire for measuring the quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Rev Mal Respir1996; 13: 43–46.
30.
JonesPWQuirkFHBaveystockCM. The St George’s respiratory questionnaire. Respir Med1991; 85: 25–31.
31.
O’DonnellDERevillSMWebbKA. Dynamic hyperinflation and exercise intolerance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2001; 164: 770–777.
32.
PuhanMAMadorMJHeldU, et al.Interpretation of treatment changes in 6-minute walk distance in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J2008; 32: 637–643.
33.
Almeida GulartAde AraujoCLPBauer MunariA, et al.Minimal important difference for London Chest Activity of Daily Living scale in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Physiotherapy2020; 107: 28–35.
34.
BeaumontMCouturaudFJegoF, et al.Validation of the French version of the London Chest Activity of Daily Living scale and the Dyspnea-12 questionnaire. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis2018; 13: 1399–1405.
35.
YorkeJSwigrisJRussellA-M, et al.Dyspnea-12 is a valid and reliable measure of breathlessness in patients with interstitial lung disease. Chest2011; 139: 159–164.
36.
BeaumontMLe GarrecMPéranL, et al.Determination of the minimal important difference for Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire in patients with COPD, after pulmonary rehabilitation. Clin Respir J2021; 15: 413–419.
37.
VaidyaTBeaumontMde BisschopC, et al.Determining the minimally important difference in quadriceps strength in individuals with COPD using a fixed dynamometer. COPD2018; 13: 2685–2693.
38.
O’SheaSDTaylorNFParatzJD. Measuring muscle strength for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: retest reliability of hand-held dynamometry. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2007; 88: 32–36.
39.
BachassonDVilliot-DangerEVergesS, et al.Mesure ambulatoire de la force maximale volontaire isométrique du quadriceps chez le patient BPCO. Rev Mal Respir2014; 31: 765–770.
DelacourHServonnetAPerrotA, et al.La courbe ROC (receiver operating characteristic) : principes et principales applications en biologie clinique. Ann Biol Clin2005; 63: 10.
42.
TerweeCBBotSDMde BoerMR, et al.Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol2007; 60: 34–42.
43.
LemayKRTullochHEPipeAL, et al.Establishing the minimal clinically important difference for the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with cardiovascular disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev2019; 39: E6–E11.
44.
SilveiraBMFPereiraMCBCardosoDR, et al.New method for evaluating maximal respiratory pressures: concurrent validity, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability. Braz J Phys Ther2021; 25: 741–748.
45.
SPLF. Recommandation pour la Pratique Clinique. Rev Mal Respir2010; 27: 522–548.
46.
McCarthyBCaseyDDevaneD., et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2015; 2015: CD003793.
47.
CharususinNGosselinkRDecramerM, et al.Randomised controlled trial of adjunctive inspiratory muscle training for patients with COPD. Thorax2018; 73: 942–950.
48.
SchultzKJelusicDWittmannM, et al.Inspiratory muscle training does not improve clinical outcomes in 3-week COPD rehabilitation: results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J2018; 51: 1702000.
49.
KatsuraMKuriyamaATakeshimaT, et al.Preoperative inspiratory muscle training for postoperative pulmonary complications in adults undergoing cardiac and major abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2015: CD010356.
50.
EdwardsAMMaguireGPGrahamD, et al.Four weeks of inspiratory muscle training improves self-paced walking performance in overweight and obese adults: a randomised controlled trial. J Obes2012; 2012: e918202.
51.
Villiot-DangerJ-CVilliot-DangerEBorelJ-C, et al.Respiratory muscle endurance training in obese patients. Int J Obes (Lond)2011; 35: 692–699.
52.
PlentzRDMSbruzziGRibeiroRA, et al.Inspiratory muscle training in patients with heart failure: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Arq Bras Cardiol2012; 99: 762–771.
53.
OzalpOInal-InceDCakmakA, et al.High-intensity inspiratory muscle training in bronchiectasis: a randomized controlled trial. Respirology2019; 24: 246–253.
54.
LarsonJLCoveyMKVitaloCA, et al.Maximal inspiratory pressure. Chest1993; 104: 448–453.
55.
MaillardJOBurdetLvan MelleG, et al.Reproducibility of twitch mouth pressure, sniff nasal inspiratory pressure, and maximal inspiratory pressure. Eur Respir J1998; 11: 901–905.
MouelhiYJouveECastelliC, et al.How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods. Health Qual Life Outcomes2020; 18: 136.
58.
KamperSJMaherCGMackayG. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther2009; 17: 163–170.
