ABSTRACTBackground and objectiveIPF is a chronic progressive lung disease in which PR provides benefit for patients. PD, a TCM PR programme, has known effectiveness in COPD, but its utility in IPF is unknown. We investigated its effectiveness and safety in patients with IPF.MethodsA 6‐month randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in three Chinese clinics. Ninety‐six participants diagnosed with IPF were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: the PD group received a PD programme two times a day, 5 days/week for 2 months, and the exercise group exercised via a stationary cycle ergometer, 30 min/day, 5 days/week for 2 months. Volunteers in the control group were advised to maintain their usual activities. Primary outcomes were changes from baseline in the 6MWD and HRQoL score on the SGRQ‐I at 1 and 2 months (at the end of the intervention) and at 6 months (4 months after the intervention). Secondary outcomes measures included FVC, DLCO (% predicted) and the changes in mMRC.ResultsThe 6MWD was increased in the PD group compared to exercise and control groups. 6MWD increased by 60.44 m in the PD group, 32.16 m in the exercise group and 12.42 m in controls after the 2 months of rehabilitation programme. The between‐group differences in the change from baseline were 28.78 m (95% CI: 0.54 to 56.01; P = 0.044) and 48.02 m (95% CI: 23.04 to 73.00; P < 0.001) at 2 months, and 25.61 m (95% CI: −0.67 to 51.89; P = 0.058) and 50.93 m (95% CI: 25.47 to 76.40; P < 0.001) at 6 months, respectively, including a difference exceeding the MCID. There was no significant change in the SGRQ‐I score, the mMRC dyspnoea score, FVC and DLCO (% predicted) in either the PD or exercise groups.ConclusionTwo months after the intervention, a clinically meaningful difference in 6MWD was observed favouring the PD programme. The PD programme is safe and effective as a rehabilitation intervention designed to increase exercise tolerance and is an appropriate substitute for PR.
Read full abstract