Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2024
A head-to-head comparison of the effects of aerobic versus resistance training on physical capacity and physical function in people with multiple sclerosis: Results from the MSBOOST trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Taul-Madsen Laurits, Hvid Lars G, Riis Hjalte, Broløs Magnus K, Lundbye-Jensen Jesper, Dalgas Ulrik
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Exercise is a safe and effective way to improve physical function in people with multiple sclerosis (PWMS).
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to perform a head-to-head study of the effects of aerobic and resistance training on physical capacity and physical function.
METHODS: A multicentre randomized controlled trial with 150 participants was conducted. Participants were randomized into 12 weeks of either aerobic training (AT; n = 62), resistance training (RT; n = 57), or usual care (UC; n = 31). The primary outcome was physical function (measured as a composite score of the 6-minute walk test and five-time sit-to-stand). Secondary outcomes were aerobic capacity (VO2peak), maximal muscle strength (MVC), and self-reported walking ability.
RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 45.5 (8.8), an expanded disability status scale (EDSS) of 2.8 (1.5), and 75% were female. Physical function did not increase in AT versus UC 0.08 [-0.16; 0.33] (mean (95% CI)) nor in RT versus UC 0.09 [-0.15; 0.34].VO2peak increased in AT versus UC by 4.1 [2.0; 6.3] mL O2/min/kg and in AT versus RT by 2.7 [1.1; 4.3], but not in RT versus UC 1.4 [-0.6; 3.5]. MVC increased in RT versus UC by 0.25 [0.01; 0.48] Nm/kg, but not in RT versus AT 0.17 [-0.02; 0.36] or AT versus UC 0.08 [-0.16; 0.31]).
CONCLUSION: AT and RT elicited improvements in physical capacity in PWMS. However, these improvements only moderately translated into improvements in physical function.Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04913012)https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04913012.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to perform a head-to-head study of the effects of aerobic and resistance training on physical capacity and physical function.
METHODS: A multicentre randomized controlled trial with 150 participants was conducted. Participants were randomized into 12 weeks of either aerobic training (AT; n = 62), resistance training (RT; n = 57), or usual care (UC; n = 31). The primary outcome was physical function (measured as a composite score of the 6-minute walk test and five-time sit-to-stand). Secondary outcomes were aerobic capacity (VO2peak), maximal muscle strength (MVC), and self-reported walking ability.
RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 45.5 (8.8), an expanded disability status scale (EDSS) of 2.8 (1.5), and 75% were female. Physical function did not increase in AT versus UC 0.08 [-0.16; 0.33] (mean (95% CI)) nor in RT versus UC 0.09 [-0.15; 0.34].VO2peak increased in AT versus UC by 4.1 [2.0; 6.3] mL O2/min/kg and in AT versus RT by 2.7 [1.1; 4.3], but not in RT versus UC 1.4 [-0.6; 3.5]. MVC increased in RT versus UC by 0.25 [0.01; 0.48] Nm/kg, but not in RT versus AT 0.17 [-0.02; 0.36] or AT versus UC 0.08 [-0.16; 0.31]).
CONCLUSION: AT and RT elicited improvements in physical capacity in PWMS. However, these improvements only moderately translated into improvements in physical function.Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04913012)https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04913012.