RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Late Breaking Abstract - Telerehabilitation compared to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled equivalence trial
JF European Respiratory Journal
JO Eur Respir J
FD European Respiratory Society
SP 4354
DO 10.1183/13993003.congress-2020.4354
VO 56
IS suppl 64
A1 Narelle Cox
A1 Christine Mcdonald
A1 Ajay Mahal
A1 Jennifer Alison
A1 Richard Wootton
A1 Paolo Zanaboni
A1 Catherine Hill
A1 Janet Bondarenko
A1 Heather Macdonald
A1 Kathryn Barker
A1 Hayley Crute
A1 Christie Mellerick
A1 Bruna Wageck
A1 Helen Boursinos
A1 Aroub Lahham
A1 Amanda Nichols
A1 Pawel Czuyprn
A1 Leah Jennings
A1 Monique Corbett
A1 Emma Handley
A1 Angela Burge
A1 Anne Holland
YR 2020
UL http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/56/suppl_64/4354.abstract
AB Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease, but is delivered to <5% of eligible individuals. Due to COVID-19 remote rehabilitation models may be critical for future delivery of services.Aims: To compare the efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation (TR) and centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in people with chronic respiratory disease.Methods: Assessor blinded, multi-centre RCT, powered for equivalence. Participants were randomised to centre-based PR or home-based TR. Both programs were 2 sessions/week for 8 weeks. Telerehabilitation used a stationary cycle and group videoconferencing to enable social interaction and real time monitoring. The primary outcome was change in chronic respiratory disease questionnaire dyspnea domain (CRQ-D) at end rehabilitation, with a pre-specified equivalence margin of 2.5 points.Results: We randomised 142 participants to PR (n=72) or TR (n=72). Both groups had clinically important improvements in CRQ-D following rehabilitation (TR mean (95%CI) 4 (2 to 5) vs PR 5 (3 to 7)), however equivalence of TR was not confirmed (mean difference between groups (MD) -1 point (-3 to 1)), with similar findings at 12 month followup (MD -1 point (-4 to 1)). The 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) was equivalent at end rehabilitation (MD -6 metres (-26 to 15) and at 12 months superiority of TR could not be excluded (MD 14 metres (-10 to 38). The proportion of participants who completed ≥70% of prescribed sessions was high (84% TR vs 79% PR).Conclusions: Home-based TR achieved clinically important gains in health-related quality of life, but equivalence to centre-based PR was not confirmed.FootnotesCite this article as: European Respiratory Journal 2020; 56: Suppl. 64, 4354.This abstract was presented at the 2020 ERS International Congress, in session “Respiratory viruses in the "pre COVID-19" era”.This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only).