Introduction: The recommended duration for pulmonary rehabilitation stands at a minimum of six weeks; however, this stipulation may pose constraints in various countries due to financial limitations imposed by insurance companies and/or national health funds, as is the case in Poland. Consequently, our study endeavors to analyze the short-term outcomes stemming from a condensed three-week PR regimen administered to patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and the concomitance of these conditions (COPD-A)—this is an approach that is standard in the rehabilitation protocols endorsed by our national health fund. Methods: Patients diagnosed with COPD, asthma, and COPD-A, referred to the PR program, underwent retrospective analysis to evaluate the short-term efficacy of a three-week PR program. Patients underwent comprehensive assessment by respiratory physicians and rehabilitation consultants, leading to individualized PR programs. Clinical evaluations occurred at program onset and completion. Results: 125 patients participated: 37 COPD, 61 asthma, and 27 COPD-A. Significant improvements were observed in the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), the consensus-based GINA symptom control tool (GINA-SCT), the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and the 6-min walk test (6 MWT) distance, as well as in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores. All groups experienced reduced dyspnea severity and improved exercise tolerance. FEV1 and FVC improved in asthma and COPD-A, but not significantly in COPD. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictive factors for PR response. Conclusions: The study supports the short-term efficacy of the three-week PR program in improving clinical outcomes, exercise tolerance, and quality of life in COPD and asthma patients. Tailoring interventions based on predictors of PR response can optimize outcomes. Further research, particularly of the COPD-A group, is needed for individualized approaches. Larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm our findings.
