Dataset Information

Online versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To obtain evidence whether the online pulmonary rehabilitation(PR) programme 'my-PR' is non-inferior to a conventional face-to-face PR in improving physical performance and symptom scores in patients with COPD.

Design

A two-arm parallel single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Setting

The online arm carried out pulmonary rehabilitation in their own homes and the face to face arm in a local rehabilitation facility.

Participants

90 patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), modified Medical Research Council score of 2 or greater referred for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), randomised in a 2:1 ratio to online (n=64) or face-to-face PR (n=26). Participants unable to use an internet-enabled device at home were excluded.

Main outcome measures

Coprimary outcomes were 6 min walk distance test and the COPD assessment test (CAT) score at completion of the programme.

Interventions

A 6-week PR programme organised either as group sessions in a local rehabilitation facility, or online PR via log in and access to 'myPR'.

Results

The adjusted mean difference for the 6 min walk test (6MWT) between groups for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 23.8 m with the lower 95% CI well above the non-inferiority threshold of -40.5 m at -4.5 m with an upper 95% CI of +52.2 m. This result was consistent in the per-protocol (PP) population with a mean adjusted difference of 15 m (-13.7 to 43.8). The CAT score difference in the ITT was -1.0 in favour of the online intervention with the upper 95% CI well below the non-inferiority threshold of 1.8 at 0.86 and the lower 95% CI of -2.9. The PP analysis was consistent with the ITT.

Conclusion

PR is an evidenced-based and guideline-mandated intervention for patients with COPD with functional limitation. A 6-week programme of online-supported PR was non-inferior to a conventional model delivered in face-to-face sessions in terms of effects on 6MWT distance, and symptom scores and was safe and well tolerated.

SUBMITTER: Bourne S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5541506 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Online versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomised controlled trial.

Bourne Simon S DeVos Ruth R North Malcolm M Chauhan Anoop A Green Ben B Brown Thomas T Cornelius Victoria V Wilkinson Tom T

BMJ open 20170717 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To obtain evidence whether the online pulmonary rehabilitation(PR) programme 'my-PR' is non-inferior to a conventional face-to-face PR in improving physical performance and symptom scores in patients with COPD.<h4>Design</h4>A two-arm parallel single-blind, randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>The online arm carried out pulmonary rehabilitation in their own homes and the face to face arm in a local rehabilitation facility.<h4>Participants</h4>90 patients with a diagnosis ...[more]

PMID: 28716786

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective therapeutic intervention for people with chronic respiratory disease. However, fewer than 5% of eligible individuals receive pulmonary rehabilitation on an annual basis, largely due to limited availability of services and difficulties associated with travel and transport. The Rehabilitation Exercise At Home (REAcH) study is an assessor-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled equivalence trial designed to compare the efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation and traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic respiratory disease. METHODS:Participants will undertake an 8-week group-based pulmonary rehabilitation program of twice-weekly supervised exercise training, either in-person at a centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation program or remotely from their home via the Internet. Supervised exercise training sessions will include 30 min of aerobic exercise (cycle and/or walking training). Individualised education and self-management training will be delivered. All participants will be prescribed a home exercise program of walking and strengthening activities. Outcomes will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, after completion of the intervention, and 12-months post intervention. The primary outcome is change in dyspnea score as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire - dyspnea domain (CRQ-D). Secondary outcomes will evaluate the efficacy of telerehabilitation on 6-min walk distance, endurance cycle time during a constant work rate test, physical activity and quality of life. Adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation between the two models will be compared. A full economic analysis from a societal perspective will be undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. DISCUSSION:Alternative models of pulmonary rehabilitation are required to improve both equity of access and patient-related outcomes. This trial will establish whether telerehabilitation can achieve equivalent improvement in outcomes compared to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. If efficacious and cost-effective, the proposed telerehabilitation model is designed to be rapidly deployed into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register at ( ACTRN12616000360415 ). Registered 21 March 2016.

Project description:IntroductionThere is compelling evidence that either centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation improves clinical outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are known health service and personal barriers which prevent potentially eligible patients from accessing the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation. The aim of this hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial is to examine the effects of offering patients a choice of pulmonary rehabilitation locations (home or centre) compared with offering only the traditional centre-based model.Method and analysisThis is a two-arm cluster randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial of 14 centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation services allocated to intervention (offering choice of home-based or centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation) or control (continuing to offer centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation only), stratified by centre-based programme setting (hospital vs non-hospital). 490 participants with COPD will be recruited. Centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation will be delivered according to best practice guidelines including supervised exercise training for 8 weeks. At intervention sites, the home-based pulmonary rehabilitation will be delivered according to an established 8-week model, comprising of one home visit, unsupervised exercise training and telephone calls that build motivation for exercise participation and facilitate self-management. The primary outcome is all-cause, unplanned hospitalisations in the 12 months following rehabilitation. Secondary outcomes include programme completion rates and measurements of 6-minute walk distance, chronic respiratory questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L, dyspnoea-12, physical activity and sedentary time at the end of rehabilitation and 12 months following rehabilitation.Direct healthcare costs, indirect costs and changes in EQ-5D-5L will be used to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will be undertaken to understand how the choice model is implemented and explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial.Ethics and disseminationAlfred Hospital Ethics Committee has approved this protocol. The trial findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, submitted for presentation at conferences and disseminated to patients across Australia with support from national lung charities and societies.Trial registration numberNCT04217330.

Project description:Pulmonary rehabilitation is widely advocated for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to improve exercise capacity, symptoms and quality of life, however only a minority of individuals with COPD are able to participate. Travel and transport are frequently cited as barriers to uptake of centre-based programs. Other models of pulmonary rehabilitation, including home-based programs, have been proposed in order to improve access to this important treatment. Previous studies of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD have demonstrated improvement in exercise capacity and quality of life, but not all elements of the program were conducted in the home environment. It is uncertain whether a pulmonary rehabilitation program delivered in its entirety at home is cost effective and equally capable of producing benefits in exercise capacity, symptoms and quality of life as a hospital-based program. The aim of this study is to compare the costs and benefits of home-based and hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation for people with COPD.This randomised, controlled, equivalence trial conducted at two centres will recruit 166 individuals with spirometrically confirmed COPD. Participants will be randomly allocated to hospital-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Hospital programs will follow the traditional outpatient model consisting of twice weekly supervised exercise training and education for eight weeks. Home-based programs will involve one home visit followed by seven weekly telephone calls, using a motivational interviewing approach to enhance exercise participation and facilitate self management. The primary outcome is change in 6-minute walk distance immediately following intervention. Measurements of exercise capacity, physical activity, symptoms and quality of life will be taken at baseline, immediately following the intervention and at 12 months, by a blinded assessor. Completion rates will be compared between programs. Direct healthcare costs and indirect (patient-related) costs will be measured to compare the cost-effectiveness of each program.This trial will identify whether home-based pulmonary rehabilitation can deliver equivalent benefits to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in a cost effective manner. The results of this study will contribute new knowledge regarding alternative models of pulmonary rehabilitation and will inform pulmonary rehabilitation guidelines for COPD.

Project description:BackgroundIn exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, administration of high concentrations of oxygen may cause hypercapnia and increase mortality compared with oxygen titrated, if required, to achieve an oxygen saturation of 88-92%. Optimally titrated oxygen regimens require two components: titrated supplemental oxygen to achieve the target oxygen saturation and, if required, bronchodilators delivered by air-driven nebulisation. The effect of repeated air vs oxygen-driven bronchodilator nebulisation in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of air versus oxygen-driven bronchodilator nebulisation on arterial carbon dioxide tension in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.MethodsA parallel group double-blind randomised controlled trial in 90 hospital in-patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Participants were randomised to receive two 2.5 mg salbutamol nebulisers, both driven by air or oxygen at 8 L/min, each delivered over 15 min with a 5 min interval in-between. The primary outcome measure was the transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide at the end of the second nebulisation (35 min). The primary analysis used a mixed linear model with fixed effects of the baseline PtCO2, time, the randomised intervention, and a time by intervention interaction term; to estimate the difference between randomised treatments at 35 min. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.ResultsOxygen-driven nebulisation was terminated in one participant after 27 min when the PtCO2 rose by > 10 mmHg, a predefined safety criterion. The mean (standard deviation) change in PtCO2 at 35 min was 3.4 (1.9) mmHg and 0.1 (1.4) mmHg in the oxygen and air groups respectively, difference (95% confidence interval) 3.3 mmHg (2.7 to 3.9), p < 0.001. The proportion of patients with a PtCO2 change ≥4 mmHg during the intervention was 18/45 (40%) and 0/44 (0%) for oxygen and air groups respectively.ConclusionsOxygen-driven nebulisation leads to an increase in PtCO2 in exacerbations of COPD. We propose that air-driven bronchodilator nebulisation is preferable to oxygen-driven nebulisation in exacerbations of COPD.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number ACTRN12615000389505 . Registration confirmed on 28/4/15.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Increased iron availability modifies cardiorespiratory function in healthy volunteers and improves exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure or pulmonary hypertension. We hypothesised that intravenous iron would produce improvements in oxygenation, exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS:We performed a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in 48 participants with COPD (mean±SD: age 69±8 years, haemoglobin 144.8±13.2?g/L, ferritin 97.1±70.0?µg/L, transferrin saturation 31.3%±15.2%; GOLD grades II-IV), each of whom received a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM; 15?mg/kg bodyweight) or saline placebo. The primary endpoint was peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) at rest after 1?week. The secondary endpoints included daily SpO2, overnight SpO2, exercise SpO2, 6?min walk distance, symptom and quality of life scores, serum iron indices, spirometry, echocardiographic measures, and exacerbation frequency. RESULTS:SpO2 was unchanged 1?week after FCM administration (difference between groups 0.8%, 95%?CI -0.2% to 1.7%). However, in secondary analyses, exercise capacity increased significantly after FCM administration, compared with placebo, with a mean difference in 6?min walk distance of 12.6?m (95%?CI 1.6 to 23.5?m). Improvements of ?40?m were observed in 29.2% of iron-treated and 0% of placebo-treated participants after 1?week (p=0.009). Modified MRC Dyspnoea Scale score was also significantly lower after FCM, and fewer participants reported scores ?2 in the FCM group, compared with placebo (33.3% vs 66.7%, p=0.02). No significant differences were observed in other secondary endpoints. Adverse event rates were similar between groups, except for hypophosphataemia, which occurred more frequently after FCM (91.7% vs 8.3%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:FCM did not improve oxygenation over 8 weeks in patients with COPD. However, this treatment was well tolerated and produced improvements in exercise capacity and functional limitation caused by breathlessness. These effects on secondary endpoints require confirmation in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN09143837.

Dataset Information

Online versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Interventions

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Online versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets