Comparison of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training in pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease: a randomised controlled pilot feasibility trial
Dimitra Nikoletou, Irina Chis Ster, Carmen Lech, Iain S MacNaughton, Felix Chua, Raminder Aul, Paul Jones
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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55846300.