Robert W Motl1, Deborah Backus2, Whitney N Neal3, Gary Cutter4, Louise Palmer2, Robert McBurney5, Hollie Schmidt5, Francois Bethoux6, Jeffrey Hebert7, Alexander Ng8, Kevin K McCully9, Prudence Plummer10. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States of America. Electronic address: robmotl@uab.edu. 2. Shepherd Center, United States of America. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States of America. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States of America. 5. Accelerate Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis, United States of America. 6. Mellen Center for MS, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, United States of America. 7. School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, United States of America. 8. Program in Exercise Science, Department of Physical Therapy, Marquette University, United States of America. 9. Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, United States of America. 10. Division of Physical Therapy, University of North Carolina at Chapel-Hill, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We propose a Phase III trial that compares the effectiveness of an exercise training program delivered in a facility-based setting with direct, in-person supervision or a home-based setting with remote supervision via telerehabilitation for improving walking performance in persons with multiple sclerosis(MS) who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability. METHODS/ DESIGN: The study was developed with stakeholder engagement and is a multi-site trial that follows a 2-stage, randomized choice design. The trial compares the effectiveness of a 16-week evidence-based, individualized exercise program delivered in a supervised, facility-based setting versus a remotely coached/guided, home-based setting using telerehabilitation in physically inactive and cognitively intact people with MS who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability(N = 500). The primary outcome is walking speed. The secondary outcomes are walking endurance, disability status, and patient-reported outcomes of physical activity, walking impairment, fatigue, and quality of life. The components of the exercise program itself are similar between the groups and follow the Guidelines for Exercise in MS protocol. This includes a program manual, exercise prescription, exercise equipment, social-cognitive theory materials including newsletters, logs, and calendars, and one-on-one behavioral coaching by exercise specialists with background in MS. The main difference between groups is the coaching approach and setting for delivering the exercise training program. The outcomes will be collected by treatment-blinded assessors at baseline(week 0), mid-intervention(week 8), post-intervention(week 16), and follow-up(week 52). DISCUSSION: The proposed study will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a novel, widely-scalable program for delivering exercise training in persons with MS who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability.
BACKGROUND: We propose a Phase III trial that compares the effectiveness of an exercise training program delivered in a facility-based setting with direct, in-person supervision or a home-based setting with remote supervision via telerehabilitation for improving walking performance in persons with multiple sclerosis(MS) who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability. METHODS/ DESIGN: The study was developed with stakeholder engagement and is a multi-site trial that follows a 2-stage, randomized choice design. The trial compares the effectiveness of a 16-week evidence-based, individualized exercise program delivered in a supervised, facility-based setting versus a remotely coached/guided, home-based setting using telerehabilitation in physically inactive and cognitively intact people with MS who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability(N = 500). The primary outcome is walking speed. The secondary outcomes are walking endurance, disability status, and patient-reported outcomes of physical activity, walking impairment, fatigue, and quality of life. The components of the exercise program itself are similar between the groups and follow the Guidelines for Exercise in MS protocol. This includes a program manual, exercise prescription, exercise equipment, social-cognitive theory materials including newsletters, logs, and calendars, and one-on-one behavioral coaching by exercise specialists with background in MS. The main difference between groups is the coaching approach and setting for delivering the exercise training program. The outcomes will be collected by treatment-blinded assessors at baseline(week 0), mid-intervention(week 8), post-intervention(week 16), and follow-up(week 52). DISCUSSION: The proposed study will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a novel, widely-scalable program for delivering exercise training in persons with MS who have walking dysfunction and mobility disability.