Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16345| Title: | Home-based rehabilitation for COPD using minimal resources: a randomised, controlled equivalence trial | Austin Authors: | Holland, Anne E ;Mahal, Ajay;Hill, Catherine J ;Lee, Annemarie L;Burge, Angela T ;Cox, Narelle S ;Moore, Rosemary P ;Nicolson, Caroline;O'Halloran, Paul;Lahham, Aroub;Gillies, Rebecca;McDonald, Christine F | Affiliation: | Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Discipline of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Physiotherapy, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia The Nossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Physiotherapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia |
Issue Date: | Jan-2017 | Date: | 2016-09-26 | Publication information: | Thorax 2017; 72(1): 57-65 | Abstract: | BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation is a cornerstone of care for COPD but uptake of traditional centre-based programmes is poor. We assessed whether home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, delivered using minimal resources, had equivalent outcomes to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. METHODS: A randomised controlled equivalence trial with 12 months follow-up. Participants with stable COPD were randomly assigned to receive 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation by either the standard outpatient centre-based model, or a new home-based model including one home visit and seven once-weekly telephone calls from a physiotherapist. The primary outcome was change in 6 min walk distance (6MWD). RESULTS: We enrolled 166 participants to receive centre-based rehabilitation (n=86) or home-based rehabilitation (n=80). Intention-to-treat analysis confirmed non-inferiority of home-based rehabilitation for 6MWD at end-rehabilitation and the confidence interval (CI) did not rule out superiority (mean difference favouring home group 18.6 m, 95% CI -3.3 to 40.7). At 12 months the CI did not exclude inferiority (-5.1 m, -29.2 to 18.9). Between-group differences for dyspnoea-related quality of life did not rule out superiority of home-based rehabilitation at programme completion (1.6 points, -0.3 to 3.5) and groups were equivalent at 12 months (0.05 points, -2.0 to 2.1). The per-protocol analysis showed the same pattern of findings. Neither group maintained postrehabilitation gains at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This home-based pulmonary rehabilitation model, delivered with minimal resources, produced short-term clinical outcomes that were equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Neither model was effective in maintaining gains at 12 months. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation could be considered for people with COPD who cannot access centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01423227, clinicaltrials.gov. | URI: | https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16345 | DOI: | 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208514 | Journal: | Thorax | PubMed URL: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27672116 | Type: | Journal Article | Subjects: | Pulmonary Rehabilitation |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal articles |
Show full item record
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.