Antarpreet Kaur
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Antarpreet Kaur has a total of 58 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Richard ZuWallack
Pulmonary and Critical Care, Trinity Health of New England, St. Francis Hospital, 114 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105, USA
3 shared publications - Bartolome R. Celli
Pulmonary and Critical Care Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
2 shared publications - Jean Bourbeau
Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2 shared publications - Sally J. Singh
The Institute for Lung Health, NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
2 shared publications - Alvar Agustí
Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS) Barcelona Spain
1 shared publication - Anne Elizabeth Holland
Respiratory Research@Alfred, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Physiotherapy, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Melbourne, Australia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 22 April 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 14 (9) , 2863
Percentage of Discharged COPD Patients with Exclusion Criteria for Participation in Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Background/Objectives: Despite documented benefits across multiple outcome areas, referral and uptake into pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following discharge after an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is low in many health care systems. Surveys documenting this underutilization may ignore the fact of disease severity or comorbidity severe enough to make many patients ineligible based on accepted selection criteria for the intervention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of non-eligibility for PR following discharge after a COPD exacerbation. Methods: Medical records of COPD patients discharged over a one-year period in two hospitals were reviewed. Records from 353 patients discharged home were reviewed by six clinicians with experience in respiratory medicine and/or PR, three at each hospital. Results: The mean age of the total sample was 71 ± 12 years; 53% were female. Full concordance (all three reviewers agreed on the eligibility or non-eligibility of each patient) was 73%. Our eligibility criterion (two of three reviewers agreed) for PR was 39%. Categories (%) of non-eligibility criteria included the severity of medical condition(s) (44%), cognitive problems, psychiatric disease or substance abuse (24%), incorrect diagnosis (18%), institutionalized post-discharge (9%), and language barriers (4%) (patients may have been placed into more than one criteria category). Conclusions: Our study indicates that a majority of patients with clinical diagnoses of COPD discharged following exacerbations may not be appropriate referrals to PR based on accepted inclusion and/or exclusion criteria for the intervention. However, even after taking this into account, PR uptake is still critically underutilized.
- 22 April 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 14 (9) , 2863
Open AccessPercentage of Discharged COPD Patients with Exclusion Criteria for Participation in Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Background/Objectives: Despite documented benefits across multiple outcome areas, referral and uptake into pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following discharge after an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is low in many health care systems. Surveys documenting this underutilization may ignore the fact of disease severity or comorbidity severe enough to make many patients ineligible based on accepted selection criteria for the intervention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of non-eligibility for PR following discharge after a COPD exacerbation. Methods: Medical records of COPD patients discharged over a one-year period in two hospitals were reviewed. Records from 353 patients discharged home were reviewed by six clinicians with experience in respiratory medicine and/or PR, three at each hospital. Results: The mean age of the total sample was 71 ± 12 years; 53% were female. Full concordance (all three reviewers agreed on the eligibility or non-eligibility of each patient) was 73%. Our eligibility criterion (two of three reviewers agreed) for PR was 39%. Categories (%) of non-eligibility criteria included the severity of medical condition(s) (44%), cognitive problems, psychiatric disease or substance abuse (24%), incorrect diagnosis (18%), institutionalized post-discharge (9%), and language barriers (4%) (patients may have been placed into more than one criteria category). Conclusions: Our study indicates that a majority of patients with clinical diagnoses of COPD discharged following exacerbations may not be appropriate referrals to PR based on accepted inclusion and/or exclusion criteria for the intervention. However, even after taking this into account, PR uptake is still critically underutilized.
- Open Access
- 11 June 2024
- Published by European Respiratory Society (ERS) in Breathe
- Vol. 20 (2) , 230347
Increasing exercise capacity and physical activity in the COPD patient
Higher levels of exercise capacity and physical activity are desired outcomes in the comprehensive management of the COPD patient. In addition, improvements in exercise capacity and physical activity are instrumental to optimising other important therapeutic goals, such as improved health status, reduced healthcare utilisation and increased survival. Four general approaches towards increasing exercise capacity and physical activity in individuals with COPD will be discussed in this review: 1) pharmacological intervention, especially the administration of long-acting bronchodilators; 2) pulmonary rehabilitation, including exercise training and collaborative self-management; 3) behavioural interventions; and 4) web-based interventions. These are by no means the only approaches, nor are they mutually exclusive: indeed, combining them, as necessary, to meet the needs of the individual respiratory patient may promote optimal outcomes, although further research is necessary in this area.
- 11 June 2024
- Published by European Respiratory Society (ERS) in Breathe
- Vol. 20 (2) , 230347
Open AccessIncreasing exercise capacity and physical activity in the COPD patient
Higher levels of exercise capacity and physical activity are desired outcomes in the comprehensive management of the COPD patient. In addition, improvements in exercise capacity and physical activity are instrumental to optimising other important therapeutic goals, such as improved health status, reduced healthcare utilisation and increased survival. Four general approaches towards increasing exercise capacity and physical activity in individuals with COPD will be discussed in this review: 1) pharmacological intervention, especially the administration of long-acting bronchodilators; 2) pulmonary rehabilitation, including exercise training and collaborative self-management; 3) behavioural interventions; and 4) web-based interventions. These are by no means the only approaches, nor are they mutually exclusive: indeed, combining them, as necessary, to meet the needs of the individual respiratory patient may promote optimal outcomes, although further research is necessary in this area.
- 10 December 2022
- Published by Elsevier in Respiratory Medicine
- Vol. 207, 107041
COPD: Providing the right treatment for the right patient at the right time
- 10 December 2022
- Published by Elsevier in Respiratory Medicine
- Vol. 207, 107041
COPD: Providing the right treatment for the right patient at the right time
- Open Access
Post-COVID-19 Condition and Health Status
Background: Observational studies of the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection generally focus on individual symptoms rather than health status. Objective: Longitudinal assessment of general health status following COVID-19 infection. Design: Observational study, with data collected from two telephone surveys at 32 ± 10 and 89 ± 25 days after discharge from the hospital or emergency department (ED) for a COVID-19 infection. Medicaid or no insurance was our marker of low socioeconomic status (SES). Acute disease severity was determined by summing 10 severity markers (yes-no) from the health encounter. Baseline comorbidity was a modified Charlson Index. Participants: 40 patients. Mean age was 54 ± 15 years, 50% were female, and 40% had low socioeconomic status. Main Measures: (1) the 20-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-20); (2) Dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council); (3) Psychological symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire for Anxiety and Depression); (4) Cognitive function (Cognitive Change Questionnaire); (5) Fatigue (Short Fatigue Questionnaire); (6) A 10-item review of systems (ROS) questionnaire. Key Results: Percentages with abnormal symptoms at the first and second surveys were (respectively): Dyspnea (40, 33), Fatigue (53, 50), Anxiety (33, 18), Depression (20, 10), PHQ-4 Composite (25, 13), and Cognitive (18, 10). Mean scores on the SF-20 subscales, Physical Functioning, Role Functioning, Social Functioning, Health Perception, Mental Health, and Pain were numerically lower than means from a published study of elderly outpatients. With the exception of Pain, all SF-20 subscale scores improved significantly by the second survey. In multivariable analyses, dyspnea was predictive of impairment in all SF-20 subscales at the second survey. Conclusions: COVID-19 infection causes persistent abnormality across multiple patient-reported outcome areas, including health status. The persistence of impairment in each health status component is influenced by baseline dyspnea.
Open AccessPost-COVID-19 Condition and Health Status
Background: Observational studies of the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection generally focus on individual symptoms rather than health status. Objective: Longitudinal assessment of general health status following COVID-19 infection. Design: Observational study, with data collected from two telephone surveys at 32 ± 10 and 89 ± 25 days after discharge from the hospital or emergency department (ED) for a COVID-19 infection. Medicaid or no insurance was our marker of low socioeconomic status (SES). Acute disease severity was determined by summing 10 severity markers (yes-no) from the health encounter. Baseline comorbidity was a modified Charlson Index. Participants: 40 patients. Mean age was 54 ± 15 years, 50% were female, and 40% had low socioeconomic status. Main Measures: (1) the 20-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-20); (2) Dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council); (3) Psychological symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire for Anxiety and Depression); (4) Cognitive function (Cognitive Change Questionnaire); (5) Fatigue (Short Fatigue Questionnaire); (6) A 10-item review of systems (ROS) questionnaire. Key Results: Percentages with abnormal symptoms at the first and second surveys were (respectively): Dyspnea (40, 33), Fatigue (53, 50), Anxiety (33, 18), Depression (20, 10), PHQ-4 Composite (25, 13), and Cognitive (18, 10). Mean scores on the SF-20 subscales, Physical Functioning, Role Functioning, Social Functioning, Health Perception, Mental Health, and Pain were numerically lower than means from a published study of elderly outpatients. With the exception of Pain, all SF-20 subscale scores improved significantly by the second survey. In multivariable analyses, dyspnea was predictive of impairment in all SF-20 subscales at the second survey. Conclusions: COVID-19 infection causes persistent abnormality across multiple patient-reported outcome areas, including health status. The persistence of impairment in each health status component is influenced by baseline dyspnea.