Comparison of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training in pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease: a randomised controlled pilot feasibility trial

Felix Chua, Raminder Aul, Paul W. Jones, Dimitra Nikoletou, Irina Chis Ster, Carmen Y. Lech, Iain S. MacNaughton

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    1 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for people with interstitial lung disease (ILD). Design: Single-centre, randomised controlled feasibility, pilot trial. Setting: Patients were recruited from the chest clinic of a tertiary ILD centre and attended circuit-based PR in the hospital's gym, followed by a personalised 6-month community programme. Participants: 58 patients, stratified per ILD type, were randomised into two groups: 33 to HIIT (18 males:15 females) (mean age (SD): 70.2 (11.4) years) and 25 to the MICT exercise mode (14 males:11 females) (mean age (SD): 69.8 (10.8) years). Interventions: 8-week, twice weekly, circuit-based PR programme of exercise and education, followed by a personalised 6-month community exercise programme. Outcome measures: Feasibility outcomes included staff-to-patient ratio and dropout rates per group. Primary outcome was the 6 min walk distance (6MWD). Secondary outcomes included the sniff nasal pressure, mouth inspiratory and expiratory pressures, handgrip and quadriceps strength and health status. Random-effects models were used to evaluate average variation in outcomes through time across the two groups. Results: The 6MWD peaked earlier with HIIT compared with MICT (at 4 months vs 5 months) but values were lower at peak (mean (95% CI): 26.3 m (3.5 to 49.1) vs 51.6 m (29.2 to 73.9)) and declined faster at 6 months post-PR. Secondary outcomes showed similar faster but smaller improvements with HIIT over MICT and more consistent maintenance 6 months post-PR with MICT than HIIT. Conclusions: HIIT is feasible in circuit-based ILD PR programmes and provides quick improvements but requires closer supervision of training and resources than MICT and benefits may be less well sustained. This would make it a less attractive option for clinical PR programmes. A definitive, multicentre randomised controlled trial is required to address the role of HIIT in ILD.
    Original languageEnglish
    Article numbere066609
    JournalBMJ Open
    Volume13
    Issue number8
    Early online date22 Aug 2023
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 31 Aug 2023

    Keywords

    • Allied health professions and studies

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training in pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease: a randomised controlled pilot feasibility trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this