Objective To evaluate whether a structured online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme can improve health related quality of life compared with usual care in adults with post-covid-19 condition (long covid). Design Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. Setting England and Wales, with home based interventions delivered remotely online from a single trial hub. Participants 585 adults (26-86 years) discharged from NHS hospitals at least three months previously after covid-19 and with ongoing physical and/or mental health sequelae (post-covid-19 condition), randomised (1:1.03) to receive the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) intervention (n=298) or usual care (n=287). Interventions Best practice usual care was a single online session of advice and support with a trained practitioner. The REGAIN intervention was delivered online over eight weeks and consisted of weekly home based, live, supervised, group exercise and psychological support sessions. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was health related quality of life using the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) score at three months. Secondary outcomes, measured at three, six, and 12 months, included PROMIS subscores (depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function, social roles/activities, and cognitive function), severity of post-traumatic stress disorder, general health, and adverse events. Results Between January 2021 and July 2022, 39 697 people were invited to take part in the study and 725 were contacted and eligible. 585 participants were randomised. Mean age was 56 (standard deviation (SD) 12) years, 52% were female participants, mean health related quality of life PROMIS-PROPr score was 0.20 (SD 0.17), and mean time from hospital discharge was 323 (SD 144) days. Compared with usual care, the REGAIN intervention led to improvements in health related quality of life (adjusted mean difference in PROPr score 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.05), P=0.02) at three months, driven predominantly by greater improvements in the PROMIS subscores for depression (1.39 (0.06 to 2.71), P=0.04), fatigue (2.50 (1.19 to 3.81), P<0.001), and pain interference (1.80 (0.50 to 3.11), P=0.01). Effects were sustained at 12 months (0.03 (0.01 to 0.06), P=0.02). Of 21 serious adverse events, only one was possibly related to the REGAIN intervention. In the intervention group, 141 (47%) participants fully adhered to the programme, 117 (39%) partially adhered, and 40 (13%) did not receive the intervention. Conclusions In adults with post-covid-19 condition, an online, home based, supervised, group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme was clinically effective at improving health related quality of life at three and 12 months compared with usual care. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448.

Background: There is a lack of international consensus regarding the prescription of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Aims: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of low-volume HIIT compared with moderate-intensity steady-state (MISS) exercise training for people with CAD. Methods and results: We conducted a multi-centre RCT, recruiting 382 patients from 6 outpatient CR centres. Participants were randomized to twice-weekly HIIT (n = 187) or MISS (n = 195) for 8 weeks. HIIT consisted of 10 × 1 min intervals of vigorous exercise (>85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1 min periods of recovery. MISS was 20–40 min of moderate-intensity continuous exercise (60–80% maximum capacity). The primary outcome was the change in cardiorespiratory fitness [peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak)] at 8 week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular disease risk markers, cardiac structure and function, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. At 8 weeks, VO2peak improved more with HIIT (2.37 mL.kg−1.min−1; SD, 3.11) compared with MISS (1.32 mL.kg−1.min−1; SD, 2.66). After adjusting for age, sex, and study site, the difference between arms was 1.04 mL.kg−1.min−1 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.69; P = 0.002). Only one serious adverse event was possibly related to HIIT. Conclusions: In stable CAD, low-volume HIIT improved cardiorespiratory fitness more than MISS by a clinically meaningful margin. Low-volume HIIT is a safe, well-tolerated, and clinically effective intervention that produces short-term improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness. It should be considered by all CR programmes as an adjunct or alternative to MISS. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02784873. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02784873.

Objectives To determine the contemporary effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospital admissions. Data sources Studies included in or meeting the entry criteria for the 2016 Cochrane review of exercise-based CR in patients with coronary artery disease. Study eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based CR versus a no-exercise control whose participants were recruited after the year 2000. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Two separate reviewers independently screened the characteristics of studies. One reviewer quality appraised any new studies and assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommended risk of bias tool. Data were reported as the risk difference (95% CI). Results We included 22 studies with 4834 participants (mean age 59.5 years, 78.4% male). We found no differences in outcomes between exercise-based CR and a no-exercise control at their longest follow-up period for: all-cause mortality (19 studies; n=4194; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.01, P=0.38) or cardiovascular mortality (9 studies; n=1182; risk difference −0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.01, P=0.25). We found a small reduction in hospital admissions of borderline statistical significance (11 studies; n=1768; risk difference −0.05, 95% CI −0.10 to −0.00, P=0.05). Conclusions and implications of key findings Our analysis indicates conclusively that the current approach to exercise-based CR has no effect on all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality, when compared with a no-exercise control. There may be a small reduction in hospital admissions following exercise-based CR that is unlikely to be clinically important. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017073616.

Exercise interventions have been shown to help physical fitness, walking, and balance after stroke, but data are lacking on whether such interventions lead to improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 30 randomized controlled trials (n=1836 patients) were found from PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, SCOPUS, The Cochrane Library, and TRIP databases when searched from 1966 to February 2020 that examine the effects of exercise interventions on HRQoL after stroke or transient ischemic attack. Exercise interventions resulted in small to moderate beneficial effects on HRQoL at intervention end (standardized mean difference, −0.23 [95% CI, −0.40 to −0.07]) that appeared to diminish at longer-term follow-up (standardized mean difference, −0.11 [95% CI, −0.26 to 0.04]). Exercise was associated with moderate improvements in physical health (standardized mean difference, −0.33 [95% CI, −0.61 to −0.04]) and mental health (standardized mean difference, −0.29 [95% CI, −0.49 to −0.09]) domains of HRQoL while effects on social or cognitive composites showed little difference. Interventions that were initiated within 6 months, lasted at least 12 weeks in duration, involved at least 150 minutes per week, and included resistance training appeared most effective. Exercise can lead to moderate beneficial effects on HRQoL and should be considered an integral part of stroke rehabilitation.

Cardiac rehabilitation is a package of lifestyle secondary prevention strategies designed for patients with coronary heart disease and chronic heart failure. A community-based cardiac rehabilitation programme provides patients with a structured exercise training intervention alongside educational support and psychological counselling. This review provides an update regarding the clinical benefits of community-based cardiac rehabilitation from a psycho-physiological perspective, and also focuses on the latest epidemiological evidence regarding potential survival benefits. Behaviour change is key to long-term adoption of a healthy and active lifestyle following a cardiac event. In order for lifestyle interventions such as structured exercise interventions to be adopted by patients, practitioners need to ensure that behaviour change programmes are mapped against patient’s priorities and values, and adapted to their level of readiness and intention to engage with the target behaviour. We review the evidence regarding behaviour change strategies for cardiac patients and provide practitioners with the latest guidance. The ‘dose’ of exercise training delivered to patients attending exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is an important consideration because an improvement in peak oxygen uptake requires an adequate physiological stimulus to invoke positive physiological adaptation. We conclude by critically reviewing the latest evidence regarding exercise dose for cardiac patients including the role of traditional and more contemporary training interventions including high intensity interval training.

Objectives To determine the effect of contemporary exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on generic and disease-specific health related quality of life for people with coronary artery disease. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Study eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials testing exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no exercise control that recruited after 31 December 1999. On 30 July 2019, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases. Study appraisal and synthesis Studies were screened for inclusion by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were reported as pooled means (95% CI for between-group difference. Results We identified 24 studies (n=4890). We performed meta-analyses for 15 short-term and 9 medium-term outcomes (36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument (SF-36), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and MacNew, a cardiac-specific outcome). Six short-term and five medium-term SF-36 domains statistically favoured exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Only for two short-term SF-36 outcomes, ‘physical function’ (mean difference 12.0, 95% CI 4.4 to 19.6) and ‘role physical’ (mean difference 16.9, 95% CI 2.4 to 31.3), did the benefit appear to be clinically important. Meta-analyses of the short-term SF-36 physical and mental component scores, EQ-5D and MacNew and the medium-term SF-36 physical component score, did not show statistically significant benefits. Only two studies had a low risk of bias (n=463 participants). Conclusions and implications of key findings There is some evidence of a short-term benefit of contemporary exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on quality of life for people with coronary artery disease. However, the contemporary data presented in this review are insufficient to support its routine use.