Abstract
IntroductionPulmonary rehabilitation (PR), an exercise and education programme for people with chronic lung disease, aims to improve exercise capacity, breathlessness and quality of life. Most evidence to support PR is from trials that use specialist exercise equipment, for example, treadmills (PR-gym). However, a significant proportion of programmes do not have access to specialist equipment with training completed with minimal exercise equipment (PR-min). There is a paucity of robust literature examining the efficacy of supervised, centre-based PR-min. We aim to determine whether an 8-week supervised, centre-based PR-min programme is non-inferior to a standard 8-week supervised, centre-based PR-gym programme in terms of exercise capacity and health outcomes for patients with chronic lung disease.Methods and analysisParallel, two-group, assessor-blinded and statistician-blinded, non-inferiority randomised trial. 436 participants will be randomised using minimisation at the individual level with a 1:1 allocation to PR-min (intervention) or PR-gym (control). Assessment will take place pre-PR (visit 1), post-PR (visit 2) and 12 months following visit 1 (visit 3). Exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test), dyspnoea (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ)-Dyspnoea), health-related quality of life (CRQ), frailty (Short Physical Performance Battery), muscle strength (isometric quadriceps maximum voluntary contraction), patient satisfaction (Global Rating of Change Questionnaire), health economic as well as safety and trial process data will be measured. The primary outcome is change in exercise capacity between visit 1 and visit 2. Two sample t-tests on an intention to treat basis will be used to estimate the difference in mean primary and secondary outcomes between patients randomised to PR-gym and PR-min.Ethics and disseminationLondon-Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority have approved the study (18/LO/0315). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at international conferences, disseminated through social media, patient and public routes and directly shared with stakeholders.Trial registration numberISRCTN16196765.
Funder
Programme Grants for Applied Research
Reference17 articles.
1. The British Thoracic Society guideline on pulmonary rehabilitation in adults: your opinion is noted
2. McCarthy B , Casey D , Devane D , et al . Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;3:CD003793. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003793.pub3
3. RCP B . National COPD audit programme. pulmonary rehabilitation: steps to breathe better, 2016. Available: file:///C:/Users/cn805/Downloads/Nat%20COPD%20PR%20Clinical%20Audit%202015%20Full%20report_0.pdf [Accessed 04 Dec 2017].
4. Steiner M , McMillan V , Lowe D . Pulmonary rehabilitation: an exercise in improvement. In: National chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) audit programme: clinical and organisational audits of pulmonary rehabilitation services in England and Wales, 2017.
5. Pulmonary rehabilitation for COPD: are programs with minimal exercise equipment effective?;Alison;J Thorac Dis,2014