LAUSR

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease, but is delivered to Aims: To compare the efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation (TR) and centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in people with chronic respiratory disease. Methods: Assessor blinded, multi-centre RCT, powered for equivalence. Participants were randomised to centre-based PR or home-based TR. Both programs were 2 sessions/week for 8 weeks. Telerehabilitation used a stationary cycle and group videoconferencing to enable social interaction and real time monitoring. The primary outcome was change in chronic respiratory disease questionnaire dyspnea domain (CRQ-D) at end rehabilitation, with a pre-specified equivalence margin of 2.5 points. Results: We randomised 142 participants to PR (n=72) or TR (n=72). Both groups had clinically important improvements in CRQ-D following rehabilitation (TR mean (95%CI) 4 (2 to 5) vs PR 5 (3 to 7)), however equivalence of TR was not confirmed (mean difference between groups (MD) -1 point (-3 to 1)), with similar findings at 12 month followup (MD -1 point (-4 to 1)). The 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) was equivalent at end rehabilitation (MD -6 metres (-26 to 15) and at 12 months superiority of TR could not be excluded (MD 14 metres (-10 to 38). The proportion of participants who completed ≥70% of prescribed sessions was high (84% TR vs 79% PR). Conclusions: Home-based TR achieved clinically important gains in health-related quality of life, but equivalence to centre-based PR was not confirmed.