Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2025
Measuring the Effects of the Commonest Exercise Programs on Subjective Fatigue in People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Effectiveness Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Boi Anna, Morrone Marco, Martinez Gianluca, Ventura Lucia, Meloni Martina, Natale Davide, Cugusi Lucia, Oneto Carmen, Sechi Elia, Aiello Elena, Deriu Franca, Manca Andrea
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To test and compare the effects of the four most common exercise-based interventions employed to manage subjective fatigue and functional impairments due to multiple sclerosis.
METHODS: Persons with multiple sclerosis complaining of fatigue as a main symptom were enrolled. After a comprehensive baseline assessment evaluating subjective fatigue impact and severity (primary endpoints), quality of life, cardiorespiratory performance, and mobility and motor-functional outcomes, participants were randomly assigned to an 8-wk intervention consisting of strength training (ST) or aerobic training (AT) or strength + aerobic (Combo) or global rehabilitation (Rehab).
RESULTS: Sixty-two mildly-moderately disabled PwMS (median Expanded Disability Status Scale 3.5 ± 1.6; age 46.6 ± 11.8 yr; 75% women) completed the study. No adverse events were reported. Between-group comparisons did not detect significant differences among groups. Considering training-induced effects separately for each group, AT showed the largest reduction in the Fatigue Severity Score (-18.8%; -0.81 points [pts], confidence interval [CI]: -1.53, -0.09, P = 0.03), followed by ST (-16.8%; -0.84 pts, CI: -1.56, -0.12, P = 0.02). Fatigue impact assessed by Modified Fatigue Impact Scale was significantly reduced after AT (-35.3%; -12.44 pts, CI: -19.00, -5.87, P < 0.01), followed by Combo (-33.8%; -13.36 pts; CI: -20.38, -6.34, P < 0.01) and Rehab (-26.2%; -8.18 pts; CI: -16.10, -0.26, P = 0.04). Regarding motor-functional outcomes, beyond the expected training-specific effects (e.g., muscle strength gains after ST, increased cardiorespiratory fitness after AT), comfortable and fastest walking speed increased significantly after Rehab (+0.16 m·s -1 , CI: 0.08, 0.23, P < 0.01; +0.22 m·s -1 , CI: 0.11, 0.329, P < 0.01, respectively) exceeding established thresholds for clinically important changes. Also, the increased distance covered in 6 min was found to exceed clinically important thresholds after ST (+55 m, CI: 9.15, 101.02, P = 0.02) and Combo (+62 m, CI: 14.04, 109.13, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the superiority of one treatment over the others has yet to be claimed, and all interventions proved beneficial to reduce fatigue impact, only AT and ST reduced both fatigue severity and impact, with the former intervention associated with the largest within-group effect sizes. When testing the effects of interventions on mobility outcomes, AT led to the largest improvements, followed by Combo.
METHODS: Persons with multiple sclerosis complaining of fatigue as a main symptom were enrolled. After a comprehensive baseline assessment evaluating subjective fatigue impact and severity (primary endpoints), quality of life, cardiorespiratory performance, and mobility and motor-functional outcomes, participants were randomly assigned to an 8-wk intervention consisting of strength training (ST) or aerobic training (AT) or strength + aerobic (Combo) or global rehabilitation (Rehab).
RESULTS: Sixty-two mildly-moderately disabled PwMS (median Expanded Disability Status Scale 3.5 ± 1.6; age 46.6 ± 11.8 yr; 75% women) completed the study. No adverse events were reported. Between-group comparisons did not detect significant differences among groups. Considering training-induced effects separately for each group, AT showed the largest reduction in the Fatigue Severity Score (-18.8%; -0.81 points [pts], confidence interval [CI]: -1.53, -0.09, P = 0.03), followed by ST (-16.8%; -0.84 pts, CI: -1.56, -0.12, P = 0.02). Fatigue impact assessed by Modified Fatigue Impact Scale was significantly reduced after AT (-35.3%; -12.44 pts, CI: -19.00, -5.87, P < 0.01), followed by Combo (-33.8%; -13.36 pts; CI: -20.38, -6.34, P < 0.01) and Rehab (-26.2%; -8.18 pts; CI: -16.10, -0.26, P = 0.04). Regarding motor-functional outcomes, beyond the expected training-specific effects (e.g., muscle strength gains after ST, increased cardiorespiratory fitness after AT), comfortable and fastest walking speed increased significantly after Rehab (+0.16 m·s -1 , CI: 0.08, 0.23, P < 0.01; +0.22 m·s -1 , CI: 0.11, 0.329, P < 0.01, respectively) exceeding established thresholds for clinically important changes. Also, the increased distance covered in 6 min was found to exceed clinically important thresholds after ST (+55 m, CI: 9.15, 101.02, P = 0.02) and Combo (+62 m, CI: 14.04, 109.13, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the superiority of one treatment over the others has yet to be claimed, and all interventions proved beneficial to reduce fatigue impact, only AT and ST reduced both fatigue severity and impact, with the former intervention associated with the largest within-group effect sizes. When testing the effects of interventions on mobility outcomes, AT led to the largest improvements, followed by Combo.