Pulmonary telerehabilitation vs. conventional pulmonary rehabilitation - a secondary responder analysis

Home-based pulmonary telerehabilitation (PTR) has been proposed to be equivalent to supervised outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) but available randomised trials have failed to reach the minimal important changes (MIC). The purpose of this study was to analyse the proportion of MIC responders and non-responders on short-term (10 weeks from baseline) and long-term (62 weeks from baseline) in total and between groups in 134 patients with COPD randomised (1:1) to either home-based PTR or traditional hospital-based outpatient PR. Difference between PTR and PR on 6MWD response proportion could not be shown at 10 (OR=0.72, CI=0.34 to 1.51, p=0.381) or 62 weeks (OR=1.12, CI=0.40 to 3.14, p=0.834). While the evidence and knowledge of PTR accumulate, outpatient supervised PR for now remains the standard of care, with home-based PTR as a strong secondary option for those unable to attend out-patient programmes.

Automated summary

This study analyzed the proportion of minimal important changes in patients with COPD who received home-based pulmonary telerehabilitation (PTR) or traditional hospital-based outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The results showed no significant difference in the improvement of walking distance between home-based PTR and traditional PR at 10 and 62 weeks. While home-based PTR is an effective alternative, outpatient PR remains the preferred option.