• Simon Bourne, Ruth DeVos, Malcolm North, Anoop Chauhan, Ben Green, Thomas Brown, Victoria Cornelius, and Tom Wilkinson.
• Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
• BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 17; 7 (7): e014580.

ObjectiveTo obtain evidence whether the online pulmonary rehabilitation(PR) programme 'my-PR' is non-inferior to a conventional face-to-face PR in improving physical performance and symptom scores in patients with COPD.DesignA two-arm parallel single-blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingThe online arm carried out pulmonary rehabilitation in their own homes and the face to face arm in a local rehabilitation facility.Participants90 patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), modified Medical Research Council score of 2 or greater referred for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), randomised in a 2:1 ratio to online (n=64) or face-to-face PR (n=26). Participants unable to use an internet-enabled device at home were excluded.Main Outcome MeasuresCoprimary outcomes were 6 min walk distance test and the COPD assessment test (CAT) score at completion of the programme.InterventionsA 6-week PR programme organised either as group sessions in a local rehabilitation facility, or online PR via log in and access to 'myPR'.ResultsThe adjusted mean difference for the 6 min walk test (6MWT) between groups for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 23.8 m with the lower 95% CI well above the non-inferiority threshold of -40.5 m at -4.5 m with an upper 95% CI of +52.2 m. This result was consistent in the per-protocol (PP) population with a mean adjusted difference of 15 m (-13.7 to 43.8). The CAT score difference in the ITT was -1.0 in favour of the online intervention with the upper 95% CI well below the non-inferiority threshold of 1.8 at 0.86 and the lower 95% CI of -2.9. The PP analysis was consistent with the ITT.ConclusionPR is an evidenced-based and guideline-mandated intervention for patients with COPD with functional limitation. A 6-week programme of online-supported PR was non-inferior to a conventional model delivered in face-to-face sessions in terms of effects on 6MWT distance, and symptom scores and was safe and well tolerated.© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

24 keywords...

hide…