12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility. METHODS: Participants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT. RESULTS: Of 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of - 0,01 [95% CI, - 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, - 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, - 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64]. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545 . Registered 13 August 2019.

The impact of seat height on 1-min sit-to-stand test performance in COPD: a randomised crossover trial.

Study question: Is there a difference in the number of repetitions in the 1-minute sit-to-stand (1MSTS) test using an individually adapted seat height to 90° knee flexion (1MSTSIND), compared with the commonly used standard chair seat height of 46 cm (1MSTSSTD), in people with COPD? Methods: We conducted a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised crossover trial in people with COPD between August 2020 and March 2021 at a specialised rehabilitation clinic in Switzerland. After a learning 1MSTS test, all participants performed two 1MSTS tests in random order on consecutive days. Participants were blinded, as they did not receive detailed information on the testing protocols. Results: 49 individuals with COPD (47% female) participated. In a regression model adjusted for sequence period and subject, 1MSTS test performance was lower on 1MSTSIND compared to 1MSTSSTD (-0.78 repetitions, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.11). In a second regression model additionally including the knee angle and an interaction term (1MSTSIND×knee angle), the interaction term was significant: 0.18 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.30). The limits of agreement were between -5.5 and 4 repetitions. Conclusion: Although we observed a statistically significant difference between 1MSTSIND and 1MSTSSTD on a population level, the difference is negligible. Further studies may be needed to determine whether individual adaptation of seat height is needed for very tall or short people to ensure a valid assessment of 1MSTS test performance in COPD.

Effectiveness of a Long-term Home-Based Exercise Training Program in Patients With COPD After Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with COPD do not maintain exercise training after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a 12-month home-based, minimal-equipment strength training program after PR have an effect on dyspnea, exercise capacity, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a parallel-arm multicenter study across four Swiss PR clinics, patients with COPD were allocated randomly (1:1 ratio) into an intervention group (IG; home-based strength training program) or control group (CG; usual care). The primary outcome was change in Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnea scale score from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in exercise capacity (1-min sit-to-stand-test [1MSTST], 6-min walk test [6MWT]), health-related quality of life, exacerbations, and symptoms. We assessed the IG's experience by interviews at study end. Main analyses were based on the intention-to-treat approach, and adjusted linear regression models were used. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients with COPD (IG, n = 61; CG, n = 62) were randomized, 61 of whom were women and whose mean ± SD age was 66.8 ± 8.1 years and mean ± SD FEV1 was 39.3 ± 15.3% predicted. One hundred four participants completed 12 months of follow-up (IG, n= 53; CG, n= 51). Of the 53 IG participants, 37 participants (70%) conducted the training until study end. We found no difference in change in CRQ dyspnea scale score over 12 months (adjusted mean difference, 0.28; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.80; P = .27). We found moderate evidence for a difference in 1MSTST repetitions favoring the IG (adjusted mean difference, 2.6; 95% CI, 0.22-5.03; P = .033), but no evidence for an effect in other outcomes. Seventy-nine percent of the IG reported positive effects that they attributed to the training. INTERPRETATION: The home exercise program had no effect on dyspnea, but improved 1MSTST performance and patient-perceived fitness. The supported program was well accepted by patients with COPD and may facilitate continued exercise training at home. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03461887; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Accompanied versus unaccompanied walking for continuous oxygen saturation measurement during 6-min walk test in COPD: a randomised crossover study.

The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference in 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance when the assessor accompanies the patient to continuously measure peripheral oxygen saturation (S pO2 ) compared to the patient walking unaccompanied. We conducted a randomised crossover study to evaluate the impact of the assessor walking with the patient during the 6MWT (6MWTwith) versus the patient walking alone (6MWTwithout). At the end of a pulmonary rehabilitation programme, each patient performed two 6MWTs in random order and separated by a 30-min rest. 49 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease classification II-IV) were included. In a regression model adjusting for period and subject, accompanying the patient resulted in a lower walking distance (mean difference -9.1 m, 95% CI -13.9- -4.3, p=0.0004). Notably, six patients walked more than 30 m farther (minimal important difference) in one of the two conditions (6MWTwith: n=1, 6MWTwithout: n=5). There were no between-sequence-group differences in heart rate, dyspnoea, leg fatigue and S pO2 . The median (interquartile range) number and duration of S pO2 signal artefacts were high but not different between the experimental conditions (6MWTwith: 17 (4-24), 34 s (7-113 s); 6 MWTwithout: 11 (3-26), 24 s (4-62 s)). At a study population level, we observed a statistically significant difference in 6MWT distance between the two experimental conditions; however, the magnitude of difference was small and may not be clinically relevant. Nevertheless, in a clinical setting, unaccompanied walking resulted in a substantially higher walking distance in individual patients, pointing towards strictly standardised testing methodology, in particular in pre-post study designs.