Online versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain evidence whether the online pulmonary rehabilitation(PR) programme 'my-PR' is non-inferior to a conventional face-to-face PR in improving physical performance and symptom scores in patients with COPD.

DESIGN

A two-arm parallel single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

The online arm carried out pulmonary rehabilitation in their own homes and the face to face arm in a local rehabilitation facility.

PARTICIPANTS

90 patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), modified Medical Research Council score of 2 or greater referred for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), randomised in a 2:1 ratio to online (n=64) or face-to-face PR (n=26). Participants unable to use an internet-enabled device at home were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Coprimary outcomes were 6 min walk distance test and the COPD assessment test (CAT) score at completion of the programme.

INTERVENTIONS

A 6-week PR programme organised either as group sessions in a local rehabilitation facility, or online PR via log in and access to 'myPR'.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean difference for the 6 min walk test (6MWT) between groups for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 23.8 m with the lower 95% CI well above the non-inferiority threshold of -40.5 m at -4.5 m with an upper 95% CI of +52.2 m. This result was consistent in the per-protocol (PP) population with a mean adjusted difference of 15 m (-13.7 to 43.8). The CAT score difference in the ITT was -1.0 in favour of the online intervention with the upper 95% CI well below the non-inferiority threshold of 1.8 at 0.86 and the lower 95% CI of -2.9. The PP analysis was consistent with the ITT.

CONCLUSION

PR is an evidenced-based and guideline-mandated intervention for patients with COPD with functional limitation. A 6-week programme of online-supported PR was non-inferior to a conventional model delivered in face-to-face sessions in terms of effects on 6MWT distance, and symptom scores and was safe and well tolerated.