Key result
Remotely-supported exercise fails to show non-inferiority to partly-supervised training for VO2max improvement.
Why the study?
To investigate whether 8 weeks of remotely-supported exercise training alters cardiorespiratory fitness, functional fitness, and body composition non-inferiorly compared with partly-supervised exercise training.
Does 8 weeks of remotely-supported exercise training improve cardiorespiratory fitness non-inferiorly to partly-supervised exercise training in female breast cancer survivors?
RCT (n=30)
Open-label
allocation ratio 1:1, block size 6, stratified for previous chemotherapy treatment and BMI
No
Does 8 weeks of remotely-supported exercise training improve cardiorespiratory fitness non-inferiorly to partly-supervised exercise training in female breast cancer survivors?
Effect estimate: Difference 95% CI -3.3 to 1.1 (95% CI -3.3 to 1.1)
Absolute Event Rate: -0.74% vs 0.35%
Remotely-supported exercise training is non-inferior to partly-supervised training for improving timed up and go and body fat percentage in breast cancer survivors, though findings regarding cardiorespiratory fitness and blood pressure remain inconclusive.
Remotely-supported exercise cannot be deemed noninferior for VO2max; leaves open optimal remote delivery models and adherence strategies in breast cancer survivors.
Background This randomised, controlled non‐inferiority trial investigated whether 8 weeks of remotely‐supported exercise training changes cardiorespiratory fitness, functional fitness and body composition by a magnitude that is not meaningfully inferior to changes caused by partly‐supervised exercise training. Methods Thirty female breast cancer survivors (57 ± 6 years, 28.9 ± 6.1 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 , BMI 25.3 ± 3.3 kg·m −2 ) were randomised to 8 weeks of partly‐supervised ( n = 15) or remotely‐supported ( n = 15) exercise training. The partly‐supervised group undertook two supervised and one unsupervised session per week, progressing from 55% to 70% and 35–50 min. The remotely‐supported group were prescribed the same total duration of exercise per week (progressing from 105 to 150 min). Intensity was prescribed using heart rate targets corresponding to 55%–70% . , functional fitness, body composition and blood pressure were assessed pre‐ and post‐intervention. Results Adherence was higher in the partly‐supervised group (87% ± 7%) versus the remotely‐supported group (64% ± 25%; p = 0.01). The remotely‐supported group exhibited changes in timed up and go (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −0.8 to 0.4 s) and percentage body fat (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −0.6 to 0.5 kg·m −2 ) that were non‐inferior to the partly‐supervised group. It was inconclusive whether changes among the remotely‐supported group for (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −3.3 to 1.1 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 ), blood pressure (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI systolic; −3 to 12 mmHg, diastolic; −5 to 6 mmHg), 6 min walk (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −54.0 to 0.4 m), or sit to stand (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −3 to 2 repetitions), were non‐inferior to the partly‐supervised group. Conclusion Remotely‐supported exercise might be an alternative to partly‐supervised exercise regarding functional fitness (assessed by timed up and go) and body composition (assessed by percentage body fat). It remains inconclusive whether remotely‐supported exercise is an alternative regarding , blood pressure and other functional fitness measurements (6‐min walk, sit to stand). Trials Registration: NCT06376578 (20/11/2020).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Struszczak et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in breast cancer (n=30). Remotely-supported exercise training vs. Partly-supervised exercise training (2 supervised and 1 unsupervised session per week) was evaluated on Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max) (Difference 95% CI -3.3 to 1.1, 95% CI -3.3 to 1.1). Remotely-supported exercise was inconclusive for non-inferiority regarding change in VO2max compared to partly-supervised exercise (difference 95% CI -3.3 to 1.1 mL/kg/min, with the lower limit crossing the -3.0 margin).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: