Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN' (REGAIN): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine which of two interventions: 1) an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme (REGAIN); or 2) a single online session of advice (best-practice usual care); is the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Multi-centre, 2-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group, randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge Inclusion criteria: 1) Adults ≥18 years; 2) ≥ 3 months after any hospital discharge related to COVID-19 infection, regardless of need for critical care or ventilatory support; 3) substantial (as defined by the participant) COVID-19 related physical and/or mental health problems; 4) access to, and able/supported to use email and internet audio/video; 4) able to provide informed consent; 5) able to understand spoken and written English, Bengali, Gujarati, Urdu, Punjabi or Mandarin, themselves or supported by family/friends. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) exercise contraindicated; 2) severe mental health problems preventing engagement; 3) previous randomisation in the present study; 4) already engaged in, or planning to engage in an alternative NHS rehabilitation programme in the next 12 weeks; 5) a member of the same household previously randomised in the present study. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention 1: The Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) programme: an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme. Intervention 2: A thirty-minute, on-line, one-to-one consultation with a REGAIN practitioner (best-practice usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - PROMIS® 29+2 Profile v2.1 (PROPr) - measured at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include dyspnoea, cognitive function, health utility, physical activity participation, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, depressive and anxiety symptoms, work status, health and social care resource use, death - measured at three, six and 12 months post-randomisation. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to best practice usual care or the REGAIN programme on a 1:1.03 basis using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, performed by minimisation and stratified by age, level of hospital care, and case level mental health symptomatology. Once consent and baseline questionnaires have been completed by the participant online at home, randomisation will be performed automatically by a bespoke web-based system. BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure allocation concealment from both participant and REGAIN practitioner at baseline, randomisation will be performed only after the baseline questionnaires have been completed online at home by the participant. After randomisation has been performed, participants and REGAIN practitioners cannot be blind to group allocation. Follow-up outcome assessments will be completed by participants online at home. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 535 participants will be randomised: 263 to the best-practice usual care arm, and 272 participants to the REGAIN programme arm. TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) Recruitment will begin in December 2020 and is anticipated to complete by September 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN:11466448 , 23rd November 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.

The effect of protein and essential amino acid supplementation on muscle strength and performance in patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Critically low skeletal muscle mass and strength, observed in 20% of people with chronic heart failure (CHF), reduces functional capacity, quality of life (QoL) and survival. Protein and essential amino acid (EAA) supplementation could be a viable treatment strategy to prevent declines in muscle strength and performance, and subsequently improve QoL and survival. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42018103649) aimed to assess the effect of dietary protein and/or EAA supplementation on muscle strength and performance in people with CHF. METHODS: Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase identified studies that reported changes in strength or muscle performance following protein and/or EAA supplementation in patients with CHF. Following PRISMA guidelines and using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria relating to participants, intervention, control, outcome and study design, two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full manuscripts for eligibility. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RCTs) or Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (cohort studies). Data were extracted for analysis using predefined criteria. RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials (RCT) and one cohort study met our inclusion criteria. All RCTs had a high risk of bias. The methodological quality of the cohort study was moderate. Heterogeneity of extracted data prevented meta-analyses, qualitative synthesis was therefore performed. Data from 167 patients with CHF suggest that protein and/or EAA supplementation does not improve strength, but may increase six-minute walk test distance, muscle mass and QoL. CONCLUSIONS: The limited quality of the studies makes firm conclusions difficult, however protein and/or EAA supplementation may improve important outcome measures related to sarcopenia. High-quality randomised controlled studies are needed.

Feasibility and effects of intra-dialytic low-frequency electrical muscle stimulation and cycle training: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Exercise capacity is reduced in chronic kidney failure (CKF). Intra-dialytic cycling is beneficial, but comorbidity and fatigue can prevent this type of training. Low-frequency electrical muscle stimulation (LF-EMS) of the quadriceps and hamstrings elicits a cardiovascular training stimulus and may be a suitable alternative. The main objectives of this trial were to assess the feasibility and efficacy of intra-dialytic LF-EMS vs. cycling. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Assessor blind, parallel group, randomized controlled pilot study with sixty-four stable patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Participants were randomized to 10 weeks of 1) intra-dialytic cycling, 2) intra-dialytic LF-EMS, or 3) non-exercise control. Exercise was performed for up to one hour three times per week. Cycling workload was set at 40-60% oxygen uptake (VO2) reserve, and LF-EMS at maximum tolerable intensity. The control group did not complete any intra-dialytic exercise. Feasibility of intra-dialytic LF-EMS and cycling was the primary outcome, assessed by monitoring recruitment, retention and tolerability. At baseline and 10 weeks, secondary outcomes including cardio-respiratory reserve, muscle strength, and cardio-arterial structure and function were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-one (of 64 randomized) participants completed the study (LF-EMS = 17 [77%], cycling = 16 [80%], control = 18 [82%]). Intra-dialytic LF-EMS and cycling were feasible and well tolerated (9% and 5% intolerance respectively, P = 0.9). At 10-weeks, cardio-respiratory reserve (VO2 peak) (Difference vs. control: LF-EMS +2.0 [95% CI, 0.3 to 3.7] ml.kg-1.min-1, P = 0.02, and cycling +3.0 [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.7] ml.kg-1.min-1, P = 0.001) and leg strength (Difference vs. control: LF-EMS, +94 [95% CI, 35.6 to 152.3] N, P = 0.002 and cycling, +65.1 [95% CI, 6.4 to 123.8] N, P = 0.002) were improved. Arterial structure and function were unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Ten weeks of intra-dialytic LF-EMS or cycling improved cardio-respiratory reserve and muscular strength. For patients who are unable or unwilling to cycle during dialysis, LF-EMS is a feasible alternative.

Low frequency electrical muscle stimulation and endothelial function in advanced heart failure patients.

AIM: Obtain initial estimates of the change in brachial artery endothelial function and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2peak ) with 8 weeks of low-frequency electrical muscle stimulation (LF-EMS) or sham in patients with advanced chronic heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a double blind, randomized design, 35 patients with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association class III-IV) were assigned to 8 weeks (5 × 60 min per week) of either LF-EMS (4 Hz, continuous) or sham (skin level stimulation only) of the quadriceps and hamstrings muscles. Four of the five sessions were at home and one under supervision. Ultrasound images of resting brachial artery diameter and post 5 min occlusion to determine flow-mediated dilation (FMD), a marker of vascular function and peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak ) during cardiopulmonary exercise test, were measured before and after LF-EMS (n = 20) and sham (n = 15) interventions. FMD improved by 2.56% (95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 3.80) with LF-EMS compared with sham (P = 0.07). There were no notable changes in VO2peak . CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in FMD with LF-EMS may have a clinically meaningful effect as higher FMD is associated with better prognosis. This is a preliminary finding, and a larger trial is warranted.

Randomised feasibility trial into the effects of low-frequency electrical muscle stimulation in advanced heart failure patients.

OBJECTIVES: Low-frequency electrical muscle stimulation (LF-EMS) may have the potential to reduce breathlessness and increase exercise capacity in the chronic heart failure population who struggle to adhere to conventional exercise. The study's aim was to establish if a randomised controlled trial of LF-EMS was feasible. DESIGN AND SETTING: Double blind (participants, outcome assessors), randomised study in a secondary care outpatient cardiac rehabilitation programme. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with severe heart failure (New York Heart Association class III-IV) having left ventricular ejection fraction <40% documented by echocardiography were eligible. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (remotely by computer) to 8 weeks (5×60 mins per week) of either LF-EMS intervention (4 Hz, continuous, n=30) or sham placebo (skin level stimulation only, n=30) of the quadriceps and hamstrings muscles. Participants used the LF-EMS straps at home and were supervised weekly OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment, adherence and tolerability to the intervention were measured during the trial as well as physiological outcomes (primary outcome: 6 min walk, secondary outcomes: quadriceps strength, quality of life and physical activity). RESULTS: Sixty of 171 eligible participants (35.08%) were recruited to the trial. 12 (20%) of the 60 patients (4 LF-EMS and 8 sham) withdrew. Forty-one patients (68.3%), adhered to the protocol for at least 70% of the sessions. The physiological measures indicated no significant differences between groups in 6 min walk distance(p=0.13) and quality of life (p=0.55) although both outcomes improved more with LF-EMS. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe heart failure can be recruited to and tolerate LF-EMS studies. A larger randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the advanced heart failure population is technically feasible, although adherence to follow-up would be challenging. The preliminary improvements in exercise capacity and quality of life were minimal and this should be considered if planning a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16749049.