van Santen Marijke, Bolwijn Paulien, Landewé Robert, Verstappen Frans, Bakker Carla, Hidding Alita, van Der Kemp Désirée, Houben Harry, van der Linden Sjef
Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J Rheumatol. 2002 Mar;29(3):582-7.
To determine the efficacy of training in fibromyalgia (FM), we compared the effects of high intensity fitness training (HIF) and low intensity fitness training (LIF).
Thirty-seven female patients with FM were randomly allocated to either a HIF group (n = 19) or a LIF group (n = 18). Four patients (1 HIF group, 3 LIF group) refused to participate after randomization but before the start of the intervention. They were excluded from the analysis. Assessments were performed at baseline and after 20 weeks of HIF or LIF. The primary outcome was patient's global assessment [on 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS)]. Secondary endpoints were pain, number of tender points, total myalgic score, physical fitness, health status, and psychological distress.
One patient in the HIF group (n = 18) and 2 in the LIF group (n = 15) stopped training sessions during the course of the study. Nine of 18 patients in the HIF group compared to 8 of 15 patients in the LIF group achieved a participation rate of 67% or more. Most important reasons for nonadherence were postexercise pain and fatigue, time consumption, and stress. The VAS for global well being improved slightly from 64 to 56 mm in the HIF group, and did not change in the LIF group (58 to 61 mm) (p = 0.07). The Wmax (physical fitness) changed modestly from 110 to 123 watt in the HIF group, and from 97 to 103 watt in the LIF group (p = 0.3). VAS for pain increased from 53 to 64 mm in the HIF group and from 52 to 54 mm in the LIF group. The large standard deviations around mean change in global assessments, number of tender points, total myalgic score, and psychological distress (by SCL-90) severely influenced the power to detect within- and between-group differences. Analysis limited to those patients who accomplished a high attendance rate (> 67%) showed similar results.
High intensity physical fitness training compared to low intensity physical fitness training leads to only modest improvements in physical fitness and general well being in patients with FM, and does not positively affect psychological status and general health.
为了确定纤维肌痛(FM)训练的疗效,我们比较了高强度健身训练(HIF)和低强度健身训练(LIF)的效果。
37名患有FM的女性患者被随机分配到HIF组(n = 19)或LIF组(n = 18)。4名患者(1名HIF组,3名LIF组)在随机分组后但干预开始前拒绝参与。他们被排除在分析之外。在基线时以及HIF或LIF训练20周后进行评估。主要结局是患者的整体评估[采用100毫米视觉模拟量表(VAS)]。次要终点包括疼痛、压痛点数量、总肌痛评分、身体素质、健康状况和心理困扰。
HIF组(n = 18)中有1名患者和LIF组(n = 15)中有2名患者在研究过程中停止了训练课程。HIF组18名患者中有9名,LIF组15名患者中有8名达到了67%或更高的参与率。不坚持训练的最重要原因是运动后疼痛和疲劳、时间消耗以及压力。HIF组中整体幸福感的VAS评分从64毫米略有改善至56毫米,LIF组未变化(58至61毫米)(p = 0.07)。HIF组的最大功率(身体素质)从110瓦适度变化至123瓦,LIF组从97瓦变化至103瓦(p = 0.3)。HIF组疼痛的VAS评分从53毫米增加至64毫米,LIF组从52毫米增加至54毫米。整体评估、压痛点数量、总肌痛评分和心理困扰(通过SCL - 90)平均变化周围的大标准差严重影响了检测组内和组间差异的效能。仅限于那些完成高出勤率(> 67%)的患者的分析显示了相似的结果。
与低强度健身训练相比,高强度健身训练仅能使FM患者的身体素质和总体幸福感有适度改善,且对心理状态和总体健康没有积极影响。