Does aerobic training alleviate fatigue and improve societal participation in patients with multiple sclerosis? A randomized controlled trial
Martin Heine, Olaf Verschuren, Erwin LJ Hoogervorst, ...
First Published May 22, 2017 Research Article
Abstract
Background:
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of aerobic training, specific for fatigue, in severely fatigued patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is lacking.
Objective:
To estimate the effectiveness of aerobic training on MS-related fatigue and societal participation in ambulant patients with severe MS-related fatigue.
Methods:
Patients (N = 90) with severe MS-related fatigue were allocated to 16-week aerobic training or control intervention. Primary outcomes were perceived fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20r) fatigue subscale) and societal participation. An improvement of ⩾8 points on the CIS20r fatigue subscale was considered clinically relevant. Outcomes were assessed by a blinded observer at baseline, 2, 4, 6 and 12 months.
Results:
Of the 89 patients that started treatment (median Expanded Disability Status Scale (interquartile range), 3.0 (2.0–3.6); mean CIS20r fatigue subscale (standard deviation (SD)), 42.6 (8.0)), 43 received aerobic training and 46 received the control intervention. A significant post-intervention between-group mean difference (MD) on the CIS20r fatigue subscale of 4.708 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.003–8.412; p = 0.014) points was found in favour of aerobic training that, however, was not sustained during follow-up. No effect was found on societal participation.
Conclusion:
Aerobic training in MS patients with severe fatigue does not lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in fatigue or societal participation when compared to a low-intensity control intervention.
FULL ARTICLE:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...52458517696596
Martin Heine, Olaf Verschuren, Erwin LJ Hoogervorst, ...
First Published May 22, 2017 Research Article
Abstract
Background:
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of aerobic training, specific for fatigue, in severely fatigued patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is lacking.
Objective:
To estimate the effectiveness of aerobic training on MS-related fatigue and societal participation in ambulant patients with severe MS-related fatigue.
Methods:
Patients (N = 90) with severe MS-related fatigue were allocated to 16-week aerobic training or control intervention. Primary outcomes were perceived fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20r) fatigue subscale) and societal participation. An improvement of ⩾8 points on the CIS20r fatigue subscale was considered clinically relevant. Outcomes were assessed by a blinded observer at baseline, 2, 4, 6 and 12 months.
Results:
Of the 89 patients that started treatment (median Expanded Disability Status Scale (interquartile range), 3.0 (2.0–3.6); mean CIS20r fatigue subscale (standard deviation (SD)), 42.6 (8.0)), 43 received aerobic training and 46 received the control intervention. A significant post-intervention between-group mean difference (MD) on the CIS20r fatigue subscale of 4.708 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.003–8.412; p = 0.014) points was found in favour of aerobic training that, however, was not sustained during follow-up. No effect was found on societal participation.
Conclusion:
Aerobic training in MS patients with severe fatigue does not lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in fatigue or societal participation when compared to a low-intensity control intervention.
FULL ARTICLE:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...52458517696596
Comment