Dataset Information

Multimorbidity rehabilitation versus disease-specific rehabilitation in people with chronic diseases: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multimorbidity (the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions in an individual) is a growing healthcare burden internationally; however, healthcare and disease management, including rehabilitation, is often delivered in single-disease siloes. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the safety and feasibility of multimorbidity rehabilitation compared to a disease-specific rehabilitation program in people with multimorbidity and (2) gather preliminary data regarding clinical outcomes and resource utilization to inform the design of future trials.

Methods

A pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis. Seventeen individuals with a chronic disease eligible for disease-specific rehabilitation (pulmonary, cardiac, heart failure rehabilitation) and at least one other chronic condition were recruited. The intervention group attended multimorbidity exercise rehabilitation and the control group attended disease-specific exercise rehabilitation. Participants attended twice-weekly exercise training and weekly education for 8 weeks. Feasibility measures included numbers screened, recruited, and completed. Other outcome measures were change in functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk test (6MWT)), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), activities of daily living (ADL), and resource utilization.

Results

Sixty-one people were screened to recruit seventeen participants (nine intervention, eight control); one withdrew prior to rehabilitation. Participants were mostly male (63%) with a mean (SD) age of 69 (9) years and body mass index of 29 (6). The intervention group attended a mean (SD) of 12 (6) sessions, and the control group attended 11 (4) sessions. One participant (6%) withdrew after commencing; two (12%) were lost to follow-up. The intervention group 6MWT distance increased by mean (SD) of 22 (45) meters (95% confidence interval -?16 to 60) compared to 22 (57) meters (95% confidence interval -?69 to 114) (control).

Conclusions

It was feasible to recruit people with multimorbidity to a randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation. A large RCT with the power to make significant conclusions about the impact on the primary and secondary outcomes is now required.

Trial registration

The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry available at http://www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12614001186640. Registered 12/11/2014.

SUBMITTER: Barker K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6267787 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multimorbidity rehabilitation versus disease-specific rehabilitation in people with chronic diseases: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Barker Kathryn K Holland Anne E AE Lee Annemarie L AL Haines Terry T Ritchie Kathryn K Boote Claire C Saliba Joanne J Lowe Stephanie S Pazsa Fiona F Thomas Lee L Turczyniak Monica M Skinner Elizabeth H EH

Pilot and feasibility studies 20181129

<h4>Background</h4>Multimorbidity (the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions in an individual) is a growing healthcare burden internationally; however, healthcare and disease management, including rehabilitation, is often delivered in single-disease siloes. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the safety and feasibility of multimorbidity rehabilitation compared to a disease-specific rehabilitation program in people with multimorbidity and (2) gather preliminary data regarding cli ...[more]

PMID: 30519483

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective therapeutic intervention for people with chronic respiratory disease. However, fewer than 5% of eligible individuals receive pulmonary rehabilitation on an annual basis, largely due to limited availability of services and difficulties associated with travel and transport. The Rehabilitation Exercise At Home (REAcH) study is an assessor-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled equivalence trial designed to compare the efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation and traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic respiratory disease. METHODS:Participants will undertake an 8-week group-based pulmonary rehabilitation program of twice-weekly supervised exercise training, either in-person at a centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation program or remotely from their home via the Internet. Supervised exercise training sessions will include 30 min of aerobic exercise (cycle and/or walking training). Individualised education and self-management training will be delivered. All participants will be prescribed a home exercise program of walking and strengthening activities. Outcomes will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, after completion of the intervention, and 12-months post intervention. The primary outcome is change in dyspnea score as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire - dyspnea domain (CRQ-D). Secondary outcomes will evaluate the efficacy of telerehabilitation on 6-min walk distance, endurance cycle time during a constant work rate test, physical activity and quality of life. Adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation between the two models will be compared. A full economic analysis from a societal perspective will be undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. DISCUSSION:Alternative models of pulmonary rehabilitation are required to improve both equity of access and patient-related outcomes. This trial will establish whether telerehabilitation can achieve equivalent improvement in outcomes compared to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. If efficacious and cost-effective, the proposed telerehabilitation model is designed to be rapidly deployed into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register at ( ACTRN12616000360415 ). Registered 21 March 2016.

Project description:Fatigue is a common yet difficult to treat condition in primary care. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) based fatigue self-management (FSM) intervention as compared to usual care among patients with chronic fatigue in primary care.An economic evaluation alongside of a parallel randomized controlled study design was used. Computer-generated variable-sized block randomization plan was used to assign patients into treatment groups and data collection staff were blinded to group assignments. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years with at least six months of persistent fatigue and no medical or psychiatric exclusions were enrolled from a large primary care practice in Stony Brook, New York. The FSM group (n = 37) received two sessions of a nurse-delivered, fatigue self-management protocol and a self-help book and the usual care group (n = 36) received regular medical care. The effectiveness measure was the Fatigue Severity Scale and the cost measure was total health care expenditures derived from monthly health services use diaries during follow-up. A societal perspective was adopted and bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated as measures of cost-effectiveness.The ICER for FSM was -$$2358, indicating that FSM dominates UC and it may generate societal cost savings as compared to usual care. Complete case analysis yielded smaller ICER (-$1199) with greater uncertainties. Net monetary benefit analysis showed that FSM has a probability of 0.833 (95% CI: 0.819, 0.847) to achieve positive NMB and the favorable results were not sensitive to assumptions about informal care or treatment costs.This economic evaluation found initial evidence that a two-session brief CBT-based FSM may be cost-effective as compared to usual care over 12 months. The FSM intervention is potentially a promising intervention for chronic fatigue patients in primary care. Additional research is needed to examine the reproducibility and generalizability of these findings.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00997451, March 28, 2009).

Project description:The treatment of patients suffering from cerebral blindness following stroke is a topic of much recent interest. Several types of treatment are under investigation, such as substitution with prisms and compensation training of saccades. A third approach, aimed at vision restitution is controversial, as a proper controlled study design is missing. In the current study, 27 chronic stroke patients with homonymous visual field defects were trained at home with a visual training device. We used a discrimination task for two types of stimuli: a static point stimulus and a new optic flow-discontinuity stimulus. Using a randomized controlled crossover design, each patient received two successive training rounds, one with high contrast stimuli in their affected hemifield (test) and one round with low-contrast stimuli in their intact hemifield (control). Goldmann and Humphrey perimetry were performed at the start of the study and following each training round. In addition, reading performance was measured. Goldmann perimetry revealed a statistically significant reduction of the visual field defect after the test training, but not after the control training or after no intervention. For both training rounds combined, Humphrey perimetry revealed that the effect of a directed training (sensitivity change in trained hemifield) exceeded that of an undirected training (sensitivity change in untrained hemifield). The interaction between trained and tested hemifield was just above the threshold of significance (p?=?0.058). Interestingly, reduction of the field defect assessed by Goldmann perimetry increases with the difference between defect size as measured by Humphrey and Goldmann perimetry prior to training. Moreover, improvement of visual sensitivity measured by Humphrey perimetry increases with the fraction of non-responsive elements (i.e., more relative field loss) in Humphrey perimetry prior to training. Reading speed revealed a significant improvement after training. Our findings demonstrate that our training can result in reduction of the visual field. Improved reading performance after defect training further supports the significance of our training for improvement in daily life activities.

Project description:BackgroundEarlier detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations may facilitate more rapid treatment with reduced risk of hospitalization. Changes in pulse oximetry may permit early detection of exacerbations. We hypothesized that overnight pulse oximetry would be superior to once-daily monitoring for the early detection of exacerbations.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate whether measuring changes in heart rate and oxygen saturation overnight is superior to once-daily monitoring of both parameters and to assess symptom changes in facilitating earlier detection of COPD exacerbations.MethodsA total of 83 patients with COPD were randomized to once-daily or overnight pulse oximetry. Both groups completed the COPD assessment test questionnaire daily. The baseline mean and SD for each pulse oximetry variable were calculated from 14 days of stable monitoring. Changes in exacerbation were expressed as Z scores from this baseline.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 70.6 (SD 8.1) years, 52% (43/83) were female, and the mean FEV1 was 53.0% (SD 18.5%) predicted. Of the 83 patients, 27 experienced an exacerbation. Symptoms were significantly elevated above baseline from 5 days before to 12 days after treatment initiation. Day-to-day variation in pulse oximetry during the stable state was significantly less in the overnight group than in the once-daily group. There were greater relative changes at exacerbation in heart rate than oxygen saturation. An overnight composite score of change in heart rate and oxygen saturation changed significantly from 7 days before initiation of treatment for exacerbation and had a positive predictive value for exacerbation of 91.2%. However, this was not statistically better than examining changes in symptoms alone.ConclusionsOvernight pulse oximetry permits earlier detection of COPD exacerbations compared with once-daily monitoring. Monitoring physiological variables was not superior to monitoring symptoms, and the latter would be a simpler approach, except where there is a need for objective verification of exacerbations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03003702; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03003702.

Project description:Objective: It was the aim to assess feasibility, safety, and potential efficacy of a new intensive, focused arm-hand BOOST program and to investigate whether there is a difference between early vs. late delivery of the program in the sub-acute phase post stroke. Methods: In this pilot RCT, patients with stroke were randomized to the immediate group (IG): 4 weeks (4 w) BOOST +4 w CONTROL or the delayed group (DG): 4 w CONTROL +4 w BOOST, on top of their usual inpatient care program. The focused arm-hand BOOST program (1 h/day, 5x/week, 4 weeks) consisted of group exercises with focus on scapula-setting, core-stability, manipulation and complex ADL tasks. Additionally, 1 h per week the Armeo®Power (Hocoma AG, Switzerland) was used. The CONTROL intervention comprised a dose-matched program (24 one-hour sessions in 4 w) of lower limb strengthening exercises and general reconditioning. At baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks of training, the Fugl-Meyer assessment upper extremity (FMA-UE), action research arm test (ARAT), and stroke upper limb capacity scale (SULCS) were administered. Results: Eighteen participants (IG: n = 10, DG: n = 8) were included, with a median (IQR) time post stroke of 8.6 weeks (5-12). No adverse events were experienced. After 4 weeks of training, significant between-group differences were found for FMA-UE (p = 0.003) and SULCS (p = 0.033) and a trend for ARAT (p = 0.075) with median (IQR) change scores for the IG of 9 (7-16), 2 (1-3), and 12.5 (1-18), respectively, and for the DG of 0.5 (-3 to 3), 1 (0-1), and 1.5 (-1 to 9), respectively. In the IG, 80% of patients improved beyond the minimal clinical important difference of FMA-UE after 4 weeks, compared to none of the DG patients. Between 4 and 8 weeks of training, patients in the DG tend to show larger improvements when compared to the IG, however, between-group comparisons did not reach significance. Conclusions: Results of this pilot RCT showed that an intensive, specific arm-hand BOOST program, on top of usual care, is feasible and safe in the sub-acute phase post stroke and suggests positive, clinical meaningful effects on upper limb function, especially when delivered in the early sub-acute phase post stroke. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04584177.

Project description:BackgroundA multi-centre RCT has shown that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (MRT) is more effective in reducing fatigue over the long-term in comparison with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but evidence on its cost-effectiveness is lacking.AimTo compare the cost-effectiveness of MRT versus CBT for patients with CFS from a societal perspective.MethodsA multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing MRT with CBT was conducted among 122 patients with CFS diagnosed using the 1994 criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and aged between 18 and 60 years. The societal costs (healthcare costs, patient and family costs, and costs for loss of productivity), fatigue severity, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured over a follow-up period of one year. The main outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was fatigue measured by the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS). The main outcome of the cost-utility analysis was the QALY based on the EuroQol-5D-3L utilities. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and uncertainty was calculated using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes.ResultsThe data of 109 patients (57 MRT and 52 CBT) were analyzed. MRT was significantly more effective in reducing fatigue at 52 weeks. The mean difference in QALY between the treatments was not significant (0.09, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.19). The total societal costs were significantly higher for patients allocated to MRT (a difference of €5,389, 95% CI: 2,488 to 8,091). MRT has a high probability of being the most cost effective, using fatigue as the primary outcome. The ICER is €856 per unit of the CIS fatigue subscale. The results of the cost-utility analysis, using the QALY, indicate that the CBT had a higher likelihood of being more cost-effective.ConclusionsThe probability of being more cost-effective is higher for MRT when using fatigue as primary outcome variable. Using QALY as the primary outcome, CBT has the highest probability of being more cost-effective.Trial registrationISRCTN77567702.

Dataset Information

Multimorbidity rehabilitation versus disease-specific rehabilitation in people with chronic diseases: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Multimorbidity rehabilitation versus disease-specific rehabilitation in people with chronic diseases: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets