Pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial compares home-based low-intensity interval training to traditional walking advice, indicating superior outcomes.
Background/Objectives: We aimed to test whether home-based low-intensity interval training (LIIT) could be equally or more effective than traditional continuous walking advice (TWA) in a population hospitalized and healed from severe COVID-19. Methods: This pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial (NCT04615390) enrolled patients admitted to intensive care units due to COVID-19 who at discharge from the hospital were given a choice between either a home-based LIIT program or TWA. The former received a structured LIIT walking (1:1 walk:rest ratio per 10 times) to be performed at a prescribed progressively increasing speed maintained with a metronome. The latter received TWA according to the guidelines (30 min or moderate intensity activity, 5 days/week). Outcome measures, collected at baseline, at the end of the 3-month training and at the 6-month follow-up, included 6 min walking distance (primary), lower limb strength, quality of life, depression and cognitive status. Results: From a total of 85 enrolled patients, 69 of them (LIIT n = 32; TWA n = 37) completed the study. Home exercise was safely executed with an 82% adherence for the LIIT group and 64% adherence for TWA. After the 3-month program, both groups significantly improved the 6MWD (LIIT: +87 m vs. TWA +42 m; p < 0.001) with a significant difference that was also maintained at follow-up (LIIT: +138 m vs. TWA +69 m; p < 0.001). No other significant between-group differences were noted. However, patients in the LIIT group significantly improved in the majority of the outcomes, while patients of TWA improved in only the primary outcome and the physical component of quality of life. Conclusions: Compared with TWA, LIIT walking was feasible, safe and associated with more favorable multidimensional recovery in COVID-19 survivors after hospitalization for severe pneumonitis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lamberti et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: