nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 27.08.2024 | Clinical Trials

High-intensity resistance training improves quality of life, muscle endurance and strength in patients with myositis: a randomised controlled trial

verfasst von: Kasper Yde Jensen, Per Aagaard, Charlotte Suetta, Jakob Lindberg Nielsen, Rune Dueholm Bech, Henrik Daa Schrøder, Jan Christensen, Casper Simonsen, Louise Pyndt Diederichsen

Erschienen in: Rheumatology International | Ausgabe 10/2024

Abstract

Myositis is associated with reduced quality of life, which is accompanied by significant impairments in muscle endurance and strength, altogether representing cardinal traits in patients with myositis. This randomised controlled trial aimed to investigate the effect of high-intensity resistance training on quality of life in patients with myositis. Thirty-two patients with established, stable myositis were randomised to 16 weeks of high-intensity resistance training (intervention group) or 16 weeks of usual care (control group). Primary outcome was quality of life assessed as the change in the physical component summary score (PCS) of the Short Form-36 health questionnaire from baseline to post-intervention. Secondary outcomes included functional capacity measures, such as functional index 3, and International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) disease activity and damage core set measures, including manual muscle testing 8 (MMT8). The primary outcome PCS showed an improvement in favour of high-intensity resistance training with a between-group difference of 5.33 (95% CI 0.61; 10.05) (p = 0.03). Additionally, functional index 3 showed a between-group difference indicating greater gains with high-intensity resistance training 11.49 (95% CI 3.37; 19.60) (p = 0.04), along with a between-group improvement in MMT8 1.30 (95% CI 0.09; 2.51) (p = 0.04). High-intensity resistance training for 16 weeks effectively improved quality of life in patients with myositis. Clinical measures of muscle endurance and muscle strength were also found to improve with high-intensity resistance training, while patients stayed in disease remission. Consequently, progressively adjusted high-intensity resistance training is feasible and causes no aggravation of the disease, while benefitting patients with myositis.

Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT04486261—https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04486261.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies—known as myositis—comprise a heterogeneous group of rare, autoimmune muscle diseases that share cardinal features such as muscle inflammation, muscle weakness and decreased muscle endurance [1, 2]. Prednisolone and other immunosuppressive medications can decrease disease activity in patients with myositis, except in patients with sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM) [3]. Even though immunosuppressive treatment is effective, muscle weakness persists and functional capacity remains reduced compared to pre-disease levels [4]. With the decline in muscle strength and endurance, activities of daily living become more taxing, in turn negatively affecting quality of life (QoL) [5‐9]. Indeed, despite immunosuppressive treatment, long-term follow-up in patients with myositis has demonstrated reduced QoL compared to healthy age-matched adults [8, 10, 11]. Therefore, non-pharmacological adjunct treatment paradigms should be explored in this patient population.

Physical exercise is generally considered beneficial for overall health [12], however, there are significant gaps in knowledge concerning the effects of exercise interventions in patients with myositis. Only four randomised controlled trials (RCT) with exercise-based interventions have been performed over the last 25 years (excl. sIBM) [13‐16], and the effect of isolated (i.e. stand-alone) high-intensity resistance training has not previously been examined in patients with myositis in an RCT design. This lack of investigation is particularly striking since high-intensity resistance training (i.e., weights > 70% of 1 repetition maximum (RM), is recognized for mitigating the loss of muscle strength across various healthy and patient populations and age groups, in turn eliciting significant improvements in functional capacity. Previous non-RCT training studies in myositis patients have included resistive/resistance (i.e., low intensity) exercises as a part of multi-exercise component training protocols [14, 16‐20]. These studies show promising results in terms of increased muscle strength, and signs of attenuated physical impairments, along with unaltered levels of inflammation within the trained muscles [14, 16‐20]. However, due to the generally low intensity of the resistive training performed, as well as it being combined with endurance exercises, it is difficult to ascertain the specific effect(s) of the resistance exercises per se on functional capacity and QoL in patients with myositis. Furthermore, only two of these multi-exercise studies included assessments of QoL [16, 20].

Consequently, the primary aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of high-intensity resistance training on QoL in patients with myositis. As a secondary aim, we investigated the effect of high-intensity resistance training on functional capacity, maximal leg extensor muscle power, and various measures from the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) Disease Activity Core Set Measures.

Materials and methods

Study design

The present study was conducted as a single-centre, single-blinded superiority RCT (Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT04486261) [21]. The study was conducted at the Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet. The study employed a two-armed (1:1) study design with 16 weeks of high-intensity resistance training (HRT) in the intervention group (IG) or usual care in the control group (CG). The resistance training was conducted at the Department of Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy at Rigshospitalet, with a small subgroup of patients (n = 4) trained at the Department of Physiotherapy at Zealand University Hospital, Køge. All training was supervised by the principal investigator (KYJ).

Separate pre-test sessions were performed prior to baseline measurements to familiarize the study participants with the functional and muscle-related tests. Outcome variables were obtained at baseline and following the 16-week intervention period. Three assessors (chief physician: LPD, physiotherapists: CG and KYJ) performed all data measurements at pre- and post-training, while blinded to group allocation, except KYJ who trained the patients and served as assessor muscle endurance—Functional index 3.

The study was approved by The Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics (H-20030409) and The Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2020–553). Further, the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and SPIRIT guidelines [22]. All study participants provided their written informed consent before engaging in the study.

Patient involvement

A patient advisory board was established to ensure that narrative patient inputs were included in the present project [23, 24]. This advisory board participated in discussions on ethics, study design, relevance, and feasibility. The advisory board was not involved in the data interpretation, writing, or editing of the present article.

Participants and randomisation

Between February 2021 and May 2021, 160 patients aged ≥ 18 years fulfilling the criteria for idiopathic inflammatory myopathies by EULAR/ACR [25, 26] and affiliated to a tertiary care centre for myositis in the Capital Region of Denmark, were screened for eligibility by a consultant (chief physician LPD) experienced in patients with myositis. Patients were excluded if: affected by additional systemic autoimmune disease (except Sjögrens Syndrome), sIBM, had co-morbidity preventing resistance training (severe heart/lung-disease, uncontrolled hypertension (systolic > 160 mmHg, diastolic > 100 mmHg), severe knee/hip arthritis) [21], alcohol- and/or drug abuse.

Patients should have a diagnosis for ≥ 6 months and be in stable background immunosuppressive treatment for at least 1 month before entering the study, receiving ≤ 5 mg of oral prednisolone daily. Adjustments in dose or type of background immunosuppressives were not permitted during the time course of the study.

Stratified group allocations were performed following baseline testing and conducted by the investigator in charge of training (KYJ), to ensure all other assessors stayed blinded. Allocation procedures were performed using a randomised allocation program (Sealed Envelope Ltd. 2021) with a 1:1 block randomisation with stratifications [age (< 50 or ≥ 50 years of age) and lung involvement (yes or no)].

Intervention procedures

High-intensity resistance training

In addition to the usual care, participants allocated to training received supervised HRT twice a week for 16 weeks, with a duration of ~ 1 h for each session.

Warm-up was performed for 10 min on a stationary bike at a low to moderate pace (70–80 rpm) and low-to-moderate intensity (50–100 W).

The training protocol consisted of five resistance exercises: horizontal bench press, horizontal leg press, seated rows, and knee extension. Seated biceps curls were performed with participants sitting on a chair.

To determine the individual training intensity at baseline, a 5 repetitions maximum (RM) test was performed prior to the start of training by all participants.

Sessions 1–4 focused on familiarisation and preconditioning to the designated training protocol, with exercises performed in three sets of 10 repetitions at a target intensity of 15RM. Intensity (i.e., external loads) was increased in the fifth session to match individual 10RM.

Exercise loads were progressively adjusted throughout the intervention period to ensure that loading intensity was maintained at 10RM. Training loads were increased when the participant completed two extra repetitions (i.e., 12 reps) in the last set (i.e., third) of the respective exercise. Inter-set pauses were 60–90 s. Training loads and volumes for all training sessions were recorded in a training diary for each participant (training data included in Results).

Usual care

The control group received usual care and attended their regular consultations with their respective physicians, further they were instructed to retain habitual physical activity levels throughout the intervention period. There were no study-related contacts (i.e., phone calls, emails, visits) during the intervention period.

Outcome assessments

Patient demographics and disease characteristics were assessed at baseline. Demographical information was extracted from the electronic medical records. Primary and secondary outcome variables were measured at baseline and following the 16-week intervention period (3–7 days following the last training session for IG). Adverse events (AEs) were registered throughout the intervention period. Aes were divided into “non-serious” and “serious”, with subcategories: “expected”, “unexpected” as well as “study-related”, “possibly study-related” and “not study related”. Training-related AEs (in the intervention group) were noted systematically in the individual training diaries. Principal investigator (KYJ) and chief physician (LPD) together decided on the category and subcategories of each AE.

Quality of life

As recommended by IMACS [27], QoL was assessed by the Short Form-36 health questionnaire (SF-36), which has been found to have good construct and criterion validity in patients with myositis [28].

The primary outcome variable was change in physical component summary SF-36 score (PCS) from baseline to post-intervention. PCS consists of four subscales: physical functioning, bodily pain, general health, and role physical. The secondary outcome mental component summary score (MCS) of SF-36 consists of four subscales: vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health. Each of the eight subscales scores from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing better health status [29].

Functional capacity, muscle power and strength

Muscle endurance was measured utilizing the functional index 3 (FI3), which is a validated tool for patients with myositis [30]. In brief, the test consists of three tasks (shoulder flexion, neck flexion, and hip flexion), all performed at a pace of 40 beats per minute controlled by a digital metronome. Completed repetitions were counted, until participants were unable to follow the external count due to fatigue or had completed a maximum of 60 (+ 5 initial “learning”) repetitions. Shoulder and hip flexions were performed for both the dominant and non-dominant sides, respectively, while always starting with the dominant side.

As a functional measure of lower extremity strength and short-term endurance, the 30-s Sit-to-Stand (30-s STS) test was implemented [31]. In brief, participants were seated in a rigid chair (45-cm vertical seat position) and asked to stand up and sit down as many times as possible in 30 s. The use of arms for assistance was not allowed and hips and knees had to be fully extended at the top of each rise.

Timed up & go (TUG) testing was performed to assess horizontal gait function and dynamic postural balance. TUG is considered a valid and reliable way of evaluating functional mobility [32]. Participants were instructed to rise from a chair (45-cm vertical seat position) with no arm assistance, walk as fast as possible 3-m forward, turn around a cone, walk back, and sit down. Three attempts were completed, and the fastest (shortest) time was selected for analysis.

As an additional measure of gait function, participants also performed the 2-min walk test (2MWT), which is validated as a reliable test of muscle endurance and is highly associated with changes in muscle strength [33]. The test was performed on a 20-m long indoor track and participants were instructed to cover the longest distance possible in 2 min.

Standing postural balance was tested by a static balance test, which is a part of the Short physical performance battery [34]. The test consists of three 10-s static stances, with feet-position gradually becoming more challenging (feet together, semi-tandem, and full tandem), with no assistance from arms or assistive devices. The test was stopped when the participants completed the three positions or if the participant had to adjust the position of the feet due to balance loss. The score range was 0–30 s, with a higher score (longer time) representing better balance [34].

Maximal unilateral leg extensor muscle power (LEP) was assessed for the dominant limb using the Nottingham power rig [35]. The participant was seated in the power rig with the arms crossed over the chest and the dominant leg at a position that allowed for a 15° angle in the knee when the footplate was fully extended [36]. At least five attempts were completed separated by 30-s rest periods, with additional attempts performed until no further increase in peak power output could be observed in two successive trials. The best attempt (highest peak power) was selected for statistical analysis.

In IG, a 10RM test was performed at the 5th and the 32nd training sessions (last session) for each of the five training exercises.

IMACS disease activity and disease damage core set measures

The disease activity core set measures by IMACS represent a validated, standardized tool to assess disease activity in patients with myositis and was implemented in the present study [27].

Physician global activity (PhGA), patient global activity (PtGA), and extramuscular global assessment (EMGA) were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (0–100-mm, VAS; with higher scores representing higher disease activity). Manual muscle testing 8 (MMT8) evaluated static muscle strength (against manual resistance applied by the tester) in eight predefined muscle groups (deltoid middle, biceps brachii, wrist extensors, quadriceps femoris, ankle dorsiflexors, neck flexors, gluteus medius, gluteus maximus) and was graded from 0 to 10, with a maximum score of 80 unilaterally (higher scores represent higher strength). Health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) assessed the participants perceived physical function (rating from 0 to 3, with lower scores representing better physical function). Plasma creatine kinase (CK) was measured by venous blood sampling (taken prior to physical testing at baseline and at least 72 h following last training session at post-intervention).

The IMACS disease damage core set measures consist of physician global damage (PhGD) and patient global damage (PtGD) and were evaluated using the VAS scale (0–100 mm; with higher scores representing more damage) [27].

Statistical analysis

Sample size

The study was designed as a superiority trial. We hypothesized to observe a group mean change of ≥ 20% in our primary outcome variable (PCS, in SF-36), based on “minimal improvement” in the validated ACR/EULAR Myositis Response Criteria [37]. The statistical significance level was set to 0.05 (two-tailed) with a statistical power of 80% and an anticipated dropout rate of 10%. To achieve this, a total of 60 participants (30 in each intervention arm) were deemed needed for the study (http://www.sealedenvelope.com/power/continuous-superiority/).

Statistical analysis

The statistical plan for the present RCT was developed in conjunction with the published protocol [21] prior to the inclusion of the first patient.

Statistical analysis was conducted to examine the change in the primary outcome variable (QoL assessed as PCS in SF-36) from baseline to post-intervention in IG compared to CG. This analysis was conducted using the “intention-to-treat” principle [38] and in the case of missing values, multiple imputations were performed (MICE—R Studio). To evaluate the difference in pre-to-post training changes between the two groups over time, ANCOVA analysis was used for both primary and secondary outcomes with baseline values of the investigated variable, age, disease duration, and medication (yes/no) as covariates. Post hoc analysis of effect size was calculated for significant outcomes of the ANCOVA analysis [39].

Further, paired t-testing was performed to identify within-group changes in IG and CG, respectively. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05 (two-tailed testing).

As scheduled in the statistical plan [21], we also performed a “per-protocol” analysis excluding participants lost to follow-up (n = 2).

As an additional analysis (not predefined in the statistical plan) the ANCOVA analysis was performed without adjustments for covariates.

All investigated outcome variables are presented as group means and standard deviation, while between-group differences are presented with 95% confidence intervals unless otherwise stated. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics of the study population were determined and reported descriptively. R Studio (V. 1.2.5001) [40] was used for all statistical procedures.

Results

Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics

Following the initial screening, 57 patients were excluded (flowchart depicted in Fig. 1). Consequently, 103 patients were invited to participate in the intervention study. Sixty-five declined to participate, while four patients did not meet the inclusion criteria of ≤ 5 mg of prednisolone administration per day. Two patients dropped out prior to group allocation (1 death and 1 personal circumstances). A total of 32 patients with established and stable myositis were randomly allocated to the intervention group (IG) (n = 15) or the control group (CG) (n = 17). Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and core set measures of participating patients with myositis

	IG (n = 15)	CG (n = 17)
Female, n (%)	10 (66.7%)	11 (68.7%)
Age, years	44.9 ± 18.9	50.3 ± 14.7
Caucasian, n (%)	15 (100%)	16 (94%)
Disease duration, years	5.8 ± 4.7	4.4 ± 3.5
IIM subset, n (%)
Dermatomyositis	3 (20.0%)	5 (29.4%)
Amyopathic dermatomyositis	1 (6.7%)	1 (5.9%)
Juvenile dermatomyositis	4 (26.7%)	1 (5.9%)
Antisynthetase syndrome	5 (33.3%)	7 (41.2%)
Immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy	1 (6.7%)	2 (11.8%)
Polymyositis	1 (6.7%)	1 (5.9%)
Myositis-specific autoantibodies, n (%)
Anti-Jo-1	1 (6.7%)	0 (0%)
Anti-OJ	4 (26.7%)	7 (41.2%)
Anti-SRP	1 (6.7%)	0 (0%)
Anti-HMGCR	0 (0%)	2 (11.8%)
Anti-Mi2	0 (0%)	1 (5.9%)
Anti-NXP2	2 (13.3%)	1 (5.9%)
Anti-MDA-5	1 (6.7%)	1 (5.9%)
Anti-TIF1-γ	1 (6.7%)	2 (11.8%)
Myositis-associated autoantibodies, n (%)
Anti-Ro	1 (26.7%)	6 (35.3%)
Anti-Pm/Scl-75	2 (13.3%)	1 (5.9%)
Anti-Pm/Scl-100	1 (6.7%)	1 (5.9%)
Extramuscular organ involvement
Interstitial lung disease, n (%)	8 (53.3%)	10 (58.8%)
Arthritis, n (%)	8 (53.3%)	10 (58.8%)
Raynaud, n (%)	7 (46.7%)	5 (29.4%)
Dysphagia, n (%)	9 (60.0%)	8 (47.1%)
Disease activity measures
Creatine kinase, mmol/L Reference value: 40–280 mmol/L	277 ± 460	162 ± 172
Health assessment questionnaire, 0–3	0.21 ± 0.29	0.29 ± 0.61
Manuel muscle testing 8, 0–80	76.7 ± 3.9	76.9 ± 2.6
Physician global activity, VAS 0–100 mm	7.9 ± 8.8	6.6 ± 6.5
Patient global activity, VAS 0–100 mm	4.3 ± 5.0	3.2 ± 3.5
Extramuscular global assessment, VAS 0–100 mm	4.0 ± 5.4	3.2 ± 3.5
Disease damage measures
Physician global damage, VAS 0–100 mm	17.0 ± 13.2	15.0 ± 9.4
Patient global damage, VAS 0–100 mm	19.7 ± 18.9	18.2 ± 14.1
Immunosuppressives, n (%)	11 (73.3%)	15 (82.4%)
Prednisolone	3^a	2^c
sDMARD	10	13
bDMARD	3^b	3^d

Data are presented as mean ± SD or number & (%)

IG group trained with high-intensity resistance training, CG control group, sDMARD synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, bDMARD biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

^aAll patients who received prednisolone also received sDMARD. ^bAll patients who received bDMARD also received sDMARD, while two out of three also received prednisolone. ^cOne patient who received prednisolone also received sDMARD, while the other received bDMARD. ^dOne patient received bDMARD only

One patient allocated to IG discontinued the training during the intervention period, due to a lack of energy to engage in training twice a week. One patient in CG was withdrawn from the study, as immunosuppressive treatment had to be discontinued, due to severe side effects caused by the immunosuppressive treatment.

The mean attendance rate in IG was 27.7 ± 3.0 training sessions, corresponding to an adherence of 87 ± 9%. During the training intervention, there were twenty COVID-19 related cancellations of planned training sessions. The COVID-adjusted training adherence was 90%.

Primary outcome

QoL assessed as SF-36 PCS showed a between-group difference in the change over time of 5.33 (0.61; 10.05) (p = 0.03) favouring HRT, with an effect size of d = 0.521. Within IG, PCS increased 12.0% following the 16-week intervention period, from 45.8 ± 9.2 to 51.3 ± 6.3 (p = 0.005). In contrast, PCS remained unchanged in CG, 45.1 ± 10.5 vs. 45.4 ± 10.9 (p = 0.90) (Fig. 2).

Secondary outcomes

Quality of life—MCS

SF-36 MCS did not differ between groups over time 0.1 (− 7.5; 7.7) (p = 0.98). MCS remained unaltered in IG: 48.4 ± 14.0 vs. 51.1 ± 8.1 (p = 0.46), as well as in CG: 43.5 ± 13.7 vs. 47.7 ± 15.2 (p = 0.08).

Functional capacity, muscle power and strength

FI3 showed a between-group difference in the magnitude of pre-to-post change over time of 11.49 (3.37; 19.60) (p = 0.007) in favour of HRT, with an effect size of d = 0.425. In terms of within-group changes, FI3 increased by 29.6% following HRT (p = 0.0004), with no changes in CG (Table 2).

Table 2

Changes in functional performance and maximal leg extensor muscle power pre-to-post intervention in the exercising (IG) and non-exercising (CG) groups

	IG Pre	IG Post	Within-group	CG Pre	CG Post	Within-group	Between-group difference
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	P-value	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	P-value	Difference (95% CI)	P-value
FI3 (%)	56.8 (30.5)	73.6 (28.8)	0.0004	71.1 (27.9)	75.2 (24.6)	0.10	11.49 (3.37; 19.60)	0.007
30-s STS (repetitions)	15.5 (4.4)	16.5 (5.2)	0.03	15.0 (4.2)	15.1 (5.2)	0.78	0.80 (-0.50; 2.10)	0.22
TUG (s)	6.2 (1.5)	5.4 (1.3)	< 0.0001	5.9 (1.9)	5.7 (1.8)	0.45	-0.38 (-0.98; 0.21)	0.19
2MWT (m)	197.1 (29.5)	206.7 (29.7)	0.008	194.9 (35.1)	202.7 (35.1)	0.02	0.20 (-8.72; 9.12)	0.96
Balance (s)	29.6 (1.4)	29.8 (0.7)	0.51	29.1 (2.7)	29.7 (1.0)	0.23	-0.13 (-0.59; 0.34)	0.58
LEP (W/kg)	2.2 (0.8)	2.50 (1.1)	0.04	2.7 (1.1)	2.7 (1.2)	0.60	0.19 (-2.17; 0.59)	0.35

Data are presented as group means and standard deviation. Between-group difference is presented with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses. Bold font means significant

FI3 functional index 3, 30-s STS 30-s sit-to-stand, TUG timed up and go, 2MWT 2-min walk test, LEP leg extensor power

HRT demonstrated significant within-group improvements following the intervention period for all functional measures, except for postural balance. Thus, 30-s STS increased 6.5% (p = 0.03), TUG improved 12.9% (p < 0.0001), 2MWT increased 4.9% (p = 0.008) and LEP increased 14.2% (p = 0.04). In CG, 2MWT increased 4.0% (p = 0.02), while all other measures of functional capacity remained unchanged (Table 2).

10-RM muscle strength improved (p < 0.0001) following HRT in all five training exercises (43–95%) (Table 3).

Table 3

Changes in 10 RM muscle strength pre-to-post intervention in the exercising group (IG)

	IG session 5	IG session 32	Within-group (p-value)
Bench press (kg)	13.6 (8.8:18.3)	25.5 (18.2:32.8)	< 0.0001
Leg press (kg)	55.7 (43.1:68.3)	79.6 (66.4:92.9)	< 0.0001
Cable row (kg)	27.1 (19.7:34.5)	41.6 (30.8:52.4)	< 0.0001
Knee extension (kg)	14.6 (9.6:19.6)	28.5 (19.5:37.5)	0.0002
Bicep curls (kg)	4.1 (3.1:5.0)	6.0 (4.7:7.3)	< 0.0001

Data are presented as group means (95% confidence intervals). Bold font means significant

RM repetitions maximum

IMACS disease activity core set measures

MMT8 showed a significant between-group difference in the magnitude of pre-to-post difference, favouring HRT by 1.30 (0.09; 2.51) (p = 0.04), with an effect size of d = 0.447. Within the IG, MMT8 increased 2.4% (p = 0.02) following the intervention period with no changes in CG (Table 4).

Table 4

Changes in IMACS disease activity core set measures pre-to-post intervention in the exercising (IG) and non-exercising (CG) groups

	IG Pre	IG Post	Within-group	CG Pre	CG Post	Within-group	Between-group difference
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	p-value	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	p-value	Difference (95% CI)	p-value
PhGA (0–100)	4.3 (5.0)	4.6 (6.7)	p = 0.79	3.2 (3.5)	4.0 (5.7)	p = 0.57	− 0.46 (− 4.49; 3.57)	p = 0.82
PtGA (0–100)	7.9 (8.8)	6.7 (10.9)	p = 0.51	6.6 (6.5)	6.6 (9.6)	p = 0.99	− 1.30 (− 7.13; 4.53)	p = 0.65
EMGA (0–100)	4.0 (5.4)	4.0 (7.0)	p = 0.97	3.2 (3.5)	3.6 (5.7)	p = 0.77	− 0.33 (− 4.21; 3.56)	p = 0.86
MMT8 (0–80)	76.7 (3.9)	78.5 (2.0)	p = 0.02	76.9 (2.6)	77.2 (2.7)	p = 0.51	1.30 (0.09; 2.51)	p = 0.04
HAQ (0–3)	0.208 (0.290)	0.094 (0.172)	p = 0.08	0.294 (0.609)	0.241 (0.347)	p = 0.51	− 0.09 (− 0.20; 0.02)	p = 0.12
CK (mmol/L)	277 (460)	146 (88)	p = 0.27	162 (172)	222 (352)	p = 0.50	− 103 (− 313; 107)	p = 0.33
PhGD (0–100)	17.0 (13.2)	12.3 (9.4)	p = 0.02	15.0 (9.4)	13.9 (9.4)	p = 0.49	− 3.34 (− 7.63; 0.95)	p = 0.12
PtGD (0–100)	19.7 (18.9)	10.4 (8.2)	p = 0.03	18.2 (14.1)	13.9 (10.8)	p = 0.07	− 4.84 (− 10.19; 0.51)	p = 0.07

Data are presented as means and standard deviation. Between-group difference is presented with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses. Significant values are in bold font

PhGA physician global activity, PtGA patient global Activity, EMGA extramuscular global assessment, MMT8 manual muscle testing 8, HAQ Health assessment questionnaire, CK creatine kinase, PhGD physician global damage, PtGD patient global damage

HAQ tended to improve in IG (p = 0.08) while remaining unaltered in CG (Table 4).

PhGA, PtGA, EMGA, and CK remained constant from pre-to-post intervention in both groups (Table 4).

PhGD and PtGD were found to improve in IG (− 27.7% and − 47.2%, respectively) following the intervention period, with no changes observed in CG (Table 4).

Adverse events

In IG, a total of 43 adverse events (AEs) were registered, of which 42 were categorised as”non-serious” and “excepted”. A single case was categorised as”non-serious” and “excepted”, which was a case of non-acute fatigue.

Acute low-level physical fatigue was the most prevalent AE, with 30 events recorded of which 14 (47%) were deemed “study-related”. Incidents of situational pain (short-term pain in certain movements) were noted 10 times with 3 (30%) of these categorised as “study-related”. Lastly, muscle soreness was reported twice, categorised as “study-related”.

In CG, one “serious” and “unexpected” AE was recorded due to severe side effects caused by the immunosuppressive treatment.

Per protocol analysis

No differences were found between our “intention-to-treat” and the “per protocol” analyses.

ANCOVA analysis without correcting for covariates showed no differences in statistical significance compared to the presented data.

Discussion

In the present study, we examined the efficacy of stand-alone high-intensity resistance training on quality of life, muscle strength and functional capacity in patients with myositis. As the main observations, 16 weeks of high-intensity resistance training produced marked improvements in quality of life compared to non-trained control patients. Importantly also, the HRT intervention led to significant improvements in functional capacity, muscle endurance and clinical measures of muscle strength, respectively. Finally, the HRT intervention protocol did not incite disease flare-ups in the present cohort of myositis patients.

While we did not fully reach our intended 20% change in QoL assessed by the SF-36 physical component summary score, the present HRT intervention did yield noteworthy improvements (+ 12%) in PCS score, which were not observed in the control group. Notably, this improvement was achieved despite relatively high baseline PCS scores (~ 46 ± 9) compared to previously reported (36.5 ± 9.5) in a comparable Danish cohort of patients with myositis [7]. Rider et al. have defined clinical improvement criteria in patients with myositis [2], however, no study so far has quantified the minimal important difference for SF-36 PCS in myositis. In systemic lupus erythematosus, a minimally important difference of 2.1 points in PCS score has been suggested previously [41]. In the present study, PCS increased by 5.5 points (1.6-fold higher than 2.1 points) following 16 weeks of HRT, which suggests an improvement potentially crossing the threshold for clinical significance, thus holding relevance for individual patients with myositis.

Previously, only a single exercise-based case-series study (n = 3) in myositis patients performing concurrent aerobic and resistance exercise training has been able to demonstrate significant improvements in both physical and mental QoL (PCS and MCS scores) [42]. For comparison, other exercise-based studies employing endurance training [15, 43], resistance-related training [44, 45], or combined endurance and resistive training [16, 20] have reported improvements in various SF-36 subdomains related to PCS, without notable changes in MCS. In consensus with these observations, the present high-intensity resistance training protocol was able to positively affect the physical component summary score, while the mental component summary score remained unaffected. To further strengthen this point, our baseline analysis showed multiple correlations between strength, physical function and PCS, while no correlations to MCS [46].

The present increase in clinically assessed muscle strength (MMT8) following 16 weeks of high-intensity resistance training is closely supported by the observed gains in 10RM muscle strength (cf. Table 3). Previous studies examining the physiological effects of physical exercise in patients with myositis also have reported gains in MMT8, interventions ranging from 7 weeks to 6 months [20, 43‐45, 47, 48].

In the present study, participants allocated to HRT demonstrated marked improvements in all measures of functional capacity, apart from postural balance. However, only muscle endurance (FI3) was found to improve significantly compared to participants receiving usual care. Increases in muscle endurance previously have been reported in response to multi-exercise endurance and/or resistance-based training in myositis patients [20, 43‐45, 47, 48].

Even though a single participant dropped out of the training group due to fatigue, only minor Adverse Events (AEs) were noted post-training sessions, such as acute low-level physical fatigue, situational pain, and muscle soreness, which align with expectations for healthy adults [49]. Further, the present 16-week resistance training protocol did not induce any adverse effects in terms of heightened disease activity or signs of musculoskeletal damage. Similar observations have previously been reported in the exercise literature (including endurance, resistive and combined exercise protocols) [20, 42, 44, 50, 51]. Collectively, the available data thus indicate that physical training including high-intensity resistance training may be considered safe for patients with myositis.

A number of limitations may be mentioned for the present study. Due to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was postponed for 6 months. Despite this delay, the targeted participant enrollment was not achieved, as some invited patients declined participation due to concerns about being infected by COVID-19.

In combination with the high inter-individual variability observed for a majority of the outcome variables, it may have rendered the current RCT statistically underpowered, albeit significant outcomes demonstrated effect sizes ranging from small to medium (d = 0.431–0.602).

The recruitment of myositis patients may have been unintentionally skewed in the present study. The included patients had established myositis with high baseline performance in HAQ and as well as TUG and 30-s STS, altogether reflecting high levels of functional capacity and physical activity prior to entering the study. Thus, patients with lower functional capacity and muscle strength expected to benefit the most from a structured high-intensity resistance training program were generally not included in the present study. Despite these potential limitations, we observed significantly better clinical responses in our primary outcome, MMT8 and FI3 in the exercising group.

Unlike all other outcome assessors, the investigator overseeing the evaluation of FI3 was not blinded to group allocation (training supervision), which makes it impossible to rule out unconscious assessor bias.

As a common trait in physical intervention studies, improvements were also observed in the control group, possibly stemming from behavioural modifications in physical activity [52]. This phenomenon is likely to attenuate some of the between-group disparities observed in all functional and muscle power-related outcomes.

In the design of this RCT, a follow-up period was not included initially, however, an evaluation of the long-term effects of high-intensity resistance training has subsequently been conducted (not published).

Several strengths warrant acknowledgement in this study. The present data suggest that high-intensity resistance exercise training is both feasible and well-tolerated in patients with myositis performing a regiment of two training sessions per week using adjustable weight training machines. Extending this notion, IG training compliance was high (87%).

The present trial was conducted as a single-centre study with all tests and analyses performed by the same assessors (i.e., same physician, same physiotherapist) pre-and post-intervention. This approach significantly mitigated the potential for inter-rater bias. Likewise, all training was supervised by a single trained exercise physiologist, which minimised possible inconsistencies in the training procedures.

All participants were included at the same time point, which inherently eliminated any between-group differences related to continuous seasonal changes throughout the time course of the study, hence reducing the amount of inter-group bias potentially arising from this factor.

Conclusion

The present study is the first RCT to investigate the effect of high-intensity resistance training in myositis patients. As our main finding, physical quality of life was improved following 16 weeks of high-intensity resistance training compared to non-training control patients receiving usual care. The observed improvement in QoL was accompanied by parallel gains in muscle endurance and clinical measures of muscle strength, respectively. Importantly, disease activity remained unaffected following the intervention period, indicating that high-intensity resistance training is feasible and well-tolerated while eliciting positive clinical effects in patients with stable myositis.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Ingrid Lundberg (Karolinska Institute), Associate Professor Helene Alexanderson (Karolinska Institute), Ph.D. Anders Jørgensen and the patient advisory board for valuable inputs to the current research project.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Congress abstracts

K. Jensen, P. Aagaard, C. Suetta, J. Nielsen, R. Bech, H. Schrøder, J. Christensen, L. Diederichsen. High-intensity strength training improves quality of life, muscle endurance and strength in patients with myositis. 39th Scandinavian Conference of Rheumatology (SCR), OP14. ORAL PRESENTATIONS. (2023). Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology 52 (sup131): 9–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009742.2023.2233370.

Jensen K, Aagaard P, Suetta C, Nielsen J, Bech R, Schrøder H, Simonsen C, Christensen J, Diederichsen L. High-intensity Resistance Training Improves Quality of Life, Muscle Endurance and Strength in Patients with Myositis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023; 75 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/high-intensity-resistance-training-improves-quality-of-life-muscle-endurance-and-strength-in-patients-with-myositis/. Accessed July 29, 2024.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by The Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics (H-20030409)—21/10-2020 and The Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2020–553)—17/05-2020 and follows the Declaration of Helsinki.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

Wiesinger GF, Quittan M, Nuhr M, Volc-Platzer B, Ebenbichler G, Zehetgruber M, Graninger W (2000) Aerobic capacity in adult dermatomyositis/polymyositis patients and healthy controls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(00)90212-0CrossRefPubMed

Rider LG, Giannini EH, Harris-Love M, Joe G, Isenberg D, Pilkington C, Lachenbruch PA, Miller FW (2003) Defining clinical improvement in adult and juvenile myositis. J Rheumatol 30(3):603–617PubMed

Lundberg IE, Fujimoto M, Vencovsky J, Aggarwal R, Holmqvist M, Christopher-Stine L, Mammen AL, Miller FW (2021) Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Nat Rev Dis Primers 7(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-021-00321-xCrossRefPubMed

Carroll MB, Newkirk MR, Sumner NS (2016) Necrotizing autoimmune myopathy: a unique subset of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy. J Clin Rheumatol 22(7):376–380. https://doi.org/10.1097/rhu.0000000000000427CrossRefPubMed

Zong M, Lundberg IE (2011) Pathogenesis, classification and treatment of inflammatory myopathies. Nat Rev Rheumatol 7(5):297–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2011.39CrossRefPubMed

Gordon PA, Winer JB, Hoogendijk JE, Choy EH (2012) Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatment for dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012(8):Cd003643. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003643.pub4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Poulsen KB, Alexanderson H, Dalgård C, Jacobsen S, Weile L, Diederichsen LP (2017) Quality of life correlates with muscle strength in patients with dermato- or polymyositis. Clin Rheumatol 36(10):2289–2295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3706-6CrossRefPubMed

Ponyi A, Borgulya G, Constantin T, Váncsa A, Gergely L, Dankó K (2005) Functional outcome and quality of life in adult patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44(1):83–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh404CrossRefPubMed

Alexanderson H, Regardt M, Ottosson C, Alemo Munters L, Dastmalchi M, Dani L, Lundberg IE (2018) Muscle strength and muscle endurance during the first year of treatment of polymyositis and dermatomyositis: a prospective study. J Rheumatol 45(4):538–546. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.161183CrossRefPubMed

10.

van de Vlekkert J, Hoogendijk JE, de Visser M (2014) Long-term follow-up of 62 patients with myositis. J Neurol 261(5):992–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-014-7313-zCrossRefPubMed

11.

Regardt M, Welin Henriksson E, Alexanderson H, Lundberg IE (2011) Patients with polymyositis or dermatomyositis have reduced grip force and health-related quality of life in comparison with reference values: an observational study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 50(3):578–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keq356CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ruegsegger GN, Booth FW (2018) Health benefits of exercise. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a029694CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Wiesinger GF, Quittan M, Aringer M, Seeber A, Volc-Platzer B, Smolen J, Graninger W (1998) Improvement of physical fitness and muscle strength in polymyositis/dermatomyositis patients by a training programme. Br J Rheumatol 37(2):196–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/37.2.196CrossRefPubMed

14.

Alexanderson H, Munters LA, Dastmalchi M, Loell I, Heimbürger M, Opava CH, Lundberg IE (2014) Resistive home exercise in patients with recent-onset polymyositis and dermatomyositis—a randomized controlled single-blinded study with a 2-year followup. J Rheumatol 41(6):1124–1132. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131145CrossRefPubMed

15.

Alemo Munters L, Dastmalchi M, Andgren V, Emilson C, Bergegård J, Regardt M, Johansson A, Orefelt Tholander I, Hanna B, Lidén M, Esbjörnsson M, Alexanderson H (2013) Improvement in health and possible reduction in disease activity using endurance exercise in patients with established polymyositis and dermatomyositis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 1-year open extension followup. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 65(12):1959–1968. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22068CrossRefPubMed

16.

Tiffreau V, Rannou F, Kopciuch F, Hachulla E, Mouthon L, Thoumie P, Sibilia J, Drumez E, Thevenon A (2017) Postrehabilitation functional improvements in patients with inflammatory myopathies: the results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 98(2):227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.09.125CrossRefPubMed

17.

Borges IBP, de Oliveira DS, Marie SKN, Lenario AM, Oba-Shinjo SM, Shinjo SK (2021) Exercise training attenuates ubiquitin-proteasome pathway and increases the genes related to autophagy on the skeletal muscle of patients with inflammatory myopathies. J Clin Rheumatol 27(6s):S224-s231. https://doi.org/10.1097/rhu.0000000000001721CrossRefPubMed

18.

Munters LA, Loell I, Ossipova E, Raouf J, Dastmalchi M, Lindroos E, Chen YW, Esbjörnsson M, Korotkova M, Alexanderson H, Nagaraju K, Crofford LJ, Jakobsson PJ, Lundberg IE (2016) Endurance exercise improves molecular pathways of aerobic metabolism in patients with myositis. Arthritis Rheumatol 68(7):1738–1750. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39624CrossRefPubMed

19.

de Oliveira DS, Borges IBP, de Souza JM, Gualano B, Pereira RMR, Shinjo SK (2019) Exercise training attenuates insulin resistance and improves β-cell function in patients with systemic autoimmune myopathies: a pilot study. Clin Rheumatol 38(12):3435–3442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04738-4CrossRefPubMed

20.

Špiritović M, Heřmánková B, Oreská S, Štorkánová H, Růžičková O, Vernerová L, Klein M, Kubínová K, Šmucrová H, Rathouská A, Česák P, Komarc M, Bunc V, Pavelka K, Šenolt L, Mann H, Vencovský J, Tomčík M (2021) The effect of a 24-week training focused on activities of daily living, muscle strengthening, and stability in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: a monocentric controlled study with follow-up. Arthritis Res Ther 23(1):173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-021-02544-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Jensen KY, Aagaard P, Schrøder HD, Suetta C, Nielsen JL, Boyle E, Diederichsen LP (2021) High-intensity strength training in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: a randomised controlled trial protocol. BMJ Open 11(6):e043793. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043793CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krle AJK, Hrobjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin JA, Dore CJ, Parulekar WR, Summerskill WS, Groves T, Schulz KF, Sox HC, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D (2015) SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Rev Panam Salud Publica 38(6):506–514PubMed

23.

Aguayo GA, Goetzinger C, Scibilia R, Fischer A, Seuring T, Tran VT, Ravaud P, Bereczky T, Huiart L, Fagherazzi G (2021) Methods to generate innovative research ideas and improve patient and public involvement in modern epidemiological research: review, patient viewpoint, and guidelines for implementation of a digital cohort study. J Med Internet Res 23(12):e25743. https://doi.org/10.2196/25743CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Pollard K, Donskoy AL, Moule P, Donald C, Lima M, Rice C (2015) Developing and evaluating guidelines for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 28(2):141–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhcqa-01-2014-0001CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bottai M, Tjärnlund A, Santoni G, Werth VP, Pilkington C, de Visser M, Alfredsson L, Amato AA, Barohn RJ, Liang MH, Singh JA, Aggarwal R, Arnardottir S, Chinoy H, Cooper RG, Danko K, Dimachkie MM, Feldman BM, García-De La Torre I, Gordon P, Hayashi T, Katz JD, Kohsaka H, Lachenbruch PA, Lang BA, Li Y, Oddis CV, Olesinka M, Reed AM, Rutkowska-Sak L, Sanner H, Selva-O’Callaghan A, Wook Song Y, Vencovsky J, Ytterberg SR, Miller FW, Rider LG, Lundberg IE (2017) EULAR/ACR classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and their major subgroups: a methodology report. RMD Open 3(2):e000507. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000507CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Lundberg IE, Tjärnlund A, Bottai M, Werth VP, Pilkington C, de Visser M, Alfredsson L, Amato AA, Barohn RJ, Liang MH, Singh JA, Aggarwal R, Arnardottir S, Chinoy H, Cooper RG, Dankó K, Dimachkie MM, Feldman BM, Garcia-De La Torre I, Gordon P, Hayashi T, Katz JD, Kohsaka H, Lachenbruch PA, Lang BA, Li Y, Oddis CV, Olesinska M, Reed AM, Rutkowska-Sak L, Sanner H, Selva-O’Callaghan A, Song YW, Vencovsky J, Ytterberg SR, Miller FW, Rider LG (2017) 2017 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and their major subgroups. Arthritis Rheumatol 69(12):2271–2282. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.40320CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Rider LG, Aggarwal R, Machado PM, Hogrel JY, Reed AM, Christopher-Stine L, Ruperto N (2018) Update on outcome assessment in myositis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 14(5):303–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2018.33CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Rider LG, Werth VP, Huber AM, Alexanderson H, Rao AP, Ruperto N, Herbelin L, Barohn R, Isenberg D, Miller FW (2011) Measures of adult and juvenile dermatomyositis, polymyositis, and inclusion body myositis: Physician and Patient/Parent Global Activity, Manual Muscle Testing (MMT), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)/Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (C-HAQ), Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale (CMAS), Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Tool (MDAAT), Disease Activity Score (DAS), Short Form 36 (SF-36), Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ), physician global damage, Myositis Damage Index (MDI), Quantitative Muscle Testing (QMT), Myositis Functional Index-2 (FI-2), Myositis Activities Profile (MAP), Inclusion Body Myositis Functional Rating Scale (IBMFRS), Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI), Cutaneous Assessment Tool (CAT), Dermatomyositis Skin Severity Index (DSSI), Skindex, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63(Suppl 11):S118-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20532CrossRefPubMed

29.

Patel AA, Donegan D, Albert T (2007) The 36-item short form. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(2):126–134. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200702000-00007CrossRefPubMed

30.

Ernste FC, Chong C, Crowson CS, Kermani TA, Mhuircheartaigh ON, Alexanderson H (2021) Functional index-3: a valid and reliable functional outcome assessment measure in patients with dermatomyositis and polymyositis. J Rheumatol 48(1):94–100. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.191374CrossRefPubMed

31.

McCarthy EK, Horvat MA, Holtsberg PA, Wisenbaker JM (2004) Repeated chair stands as a measure of lower limb strength in sexagenarian women. J Gerontol A 59(11):1207–1212. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.11.1207CrossRef

32.

Podsiadlo D, Richardson S (1991) The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 39(2):142–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.xCrossRefPubMed

33.

Dunga S, Kavadichanda C, Bairwa D, Thabah MM, Negi VS (2022) Performance of timed function tests as outcome measures in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy-results from a single-centre cohort. Rheumatology (Oxford) 62(1):290–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keac244CrossRefPubMed

34.

Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, Scherr PA, Wallace RB (1994) A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 49(2):M85-94. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/49.2.m85CrossRefPubMed

35.

Bassey EJ, Short AH (1990) A new method for measuring power output in a single leg extension: feasibility, reliability and validity. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 60(5):385–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00713504CrossRefPubMed

36.

Suetta C, Haddock B, Alcazar J, Noerst T, Hansen OM, Ludvig H, Kamper RS, Schnohr P, Prescott E, Andersen LL, Frandsen U, Aagaard P, Bülow J, Hovind P, Simonsen L (2019) The Copenhagen Sarcopenia Study: lean mass, strength, power, and physical function in a Danish cohort aged 20–93 years. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 10(6):1316–1329. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12477CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Aggarwal R, Rider LG, Ruperto N, Bayat N, Erman B, Feldman BM, Oddis CV, Amato AA, Chinoy H, Cooper RG, Dastmalchi M, Fiorentino D, Isenberg D, Katz JD, Mammen A, de Visser M, Ytterberg SR, Lundberg IE, Chung L, Danko K, García-De la Torre I, Song YW, Villa L, Rinaldi M, Rockette H, Lachenbruch PA, Miller FW, Vencovsky J (2017) 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for minimal, moderate, and major clinical response in adult dermatomyositis and polymyositis: an International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 76(5):792–801. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211400CrossRefPubMed

38.

McCoy CE (2017) Understanding the intention-to-treat principle in randomized controlled trials. West J Emerg Med 18(6):1075–1078. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.8.35985CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059CrossRef

40.

R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

41.

Colangelo KJ, Pope JE, Peschken C (2009) The minimally important difference for patient reported outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus including the HAQ-DI, pain, fatigue, and SF-36. J Rheumatol 36(10):2231–2237. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.090193CrossRefPubMed

42.

Mattar MA, Gualano B, Roschel H, Perandini LA, Dassouki T, Lima FR, Shinjo SK, de Sá Pinto AL (2014) Exercise as an adjuvant treatment in persistent active polymyositis. J Clin Rheumatol 20(1):11–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/rhu.0000000000000056CrossRefPubMed

43.

Zhang G, Tang M, Zhang X, Zhou S, Wu C, Zhao J, Xu D, Wang Q, Li M, Chen L, Zeng X (2022) Effects of conventional rehabilitative and aerobic training in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy. Rheumatol Immunol Res 3(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.2478/rir-2022-0004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Alexanderson H, Stenström CH, Jenner G, Lundberg I (2000) The safety of a resistive home exercise program in patients with recent onset active polymyositis or dermatomyositis. Scand J Rheumatol 29(5):295–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/030097400447679CrossRefPubMed

45.

Dastmalchi M, Alexanderson H, Loell I, Ståhlberg M, Borg K, Lundberg IE, Esbjörnsson M (2007) Effect of physical training on the proportion of slow-twitch type I muscle fibers, a novel nonimmune-mediated mechanism for muscle impairment in polymyositis or dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 57(7):1303–1310. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22996CrossRefPubMed

46.

Jensen KY, Aagaard P, Suetta C, Nielsen JL, Schrøder HD, Grønset C, Simonsen C, Diederichsen LP (2024) Quality of life in patients with myositis is associated with functional capacity, body composition, and disease activity-baseline data from a randomized controlled trial. Int J Rheum Dis 27(3):e15132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185x.15132CrossRefPubMed

47.

Alexanderson H, Dastmalchi M, Esbjörnsson-Liljedahl M, Opava CH, Lundberg IE (2007) Benefits of intensive resistance training in patients with chronic polymyositis or dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 57(5):768–777. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22780CrossRefPubMed

48.

Nemec M, Vernerová L, Laiferová N, Balážová M, Vokurková M, Kurdiová T, Oreská S, Kubínová K, Klein M, Špiritović M, Tomčík M, Vencovský J, Ukropec J, Ukropcová B (2021) Altered dynamics of lipid metabolism in muscle cells from patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy is ameliorated by 6 months of training. J Physiol 599(1):207–229. https://doi.org/10.1113/jp280468CrossRefPubMed

49.

El-Kotob R, Ponzano M, Chaput JP, Janssen I, Kho ME, Poitras VJ, Ross R, Ross-White A, Saunders TJ, Giangregorio LM (2020) Resistance training and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 45(10 (Suppl. 2)):S165-s179. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2020-0245CrossRefPubMed

50.

Jørgensen AN, Aagaard P, Frandsen U, Boyle E, Diederichsen LP (2018) Blood-flow restricted resistance training in patients with sporadic inclusion body myositis: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Rheumatol 47(5):400–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009742.2017.1423109CrossRefPubMed

51.

Varjú C, Pethö E, Kutas R, Czirják L (2003) The effect of physical exercise following acute disease exacerbation in patients with dermato/polymyositis. Clin Rehabil 17(1):83–87. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215503cr572oaCrossRefPubMed

52.

Waters L, Reeves M, Fjeldsoe B, Eakin E (2012) Control group improvements in physical activity intervention trials and possible explanatory factors: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health 9(6):884–895. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.9.6.884CrossRefPubMed

Titel: High-intensity resistance training improves quality of life, muscle endurance and strength in patients with myositis: a randomised controlled trial
verfasst von: Kasper Yde Jensen
Per Aagaard
Charlotte Suetta
Jakob Lindberg Nielsen
Rune Dueholm Bech
Henrik Daa Schrøder
Jan Christensen
Casper Simonsen
Louise Pyndt Diederichsen
Publikationsdatum: 27.08.2024
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Rheumatology International / Ausgabe 10/2024
Print ISSN: 0172-8172
Elektronische ISSN: 1437-160X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-024-05698-y

Analysis of the shorter drug survival times for Janus kinase inhibitors and interleukin-17 inhibitors compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in a real-world cohort of axial spondyloarthritis patients - a retrospective analysis from the RHADAR network

Open Access
Observational Research

Association of serum and synovial adipokines (chemerin and resistin) with inflammatory markers and ultrasonographic evaluation scores in patients with knee joint osteoarthritis- a pilot study

Observational Research

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis reported willingness to use remote care and showed high adherence to electronic patient-reported outcome measures: an 18-month observational study

Open Access
Observational Research

Familial Mediterranean fever during and post-COVID-19 pandemic

Correspondence

Chronobiological variables predict non-response to serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors in fibromyalgia: a cross-sectional study

Open Access
Observational Research

Factors associated with 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in Chinese hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective cohort study

Observational Research

Kompaktes Leitlinien-Wissen Innere Medizin (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

Mit medbee Pocketcards schnell und sicher entscheiden.
Leitlinien-Wissen kostenlos und immer griffbereit auf ihrem Desktop, Handy oder Tablet.

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Systemische Psoriasistherapien unterscheiden sich im Infektionsrisiko

27.04.2025
Psoriasis vulgaris
Nachrichten

Die erhöhte Infektionsgefahr unter systemischen Psoriasistherapien ist für ältere Menschen besonders relevant. Einer Kohortenstudie aus Kanada zufolge könnten neuere Biologika diesbezüglich eine gute Wahl für sie darstellen.

ctDNA erkennt minimale Resterkrankung beim Melanom

25.04.2025
Tumormarker
Nachrichten

Die Diagnose einer minimalen Resterkrankung mithilfe zirkulierender Tumor-DNA könnte (ctDNA) auch das Management von Patientinnen und Patienten mit Melanomen im Stadium III bereichern, wie Ergebnisse einer Studie nahelegen – auch wenn die Methode noch nicht perfekt funktioniert.

Lipidtherapie im Praxisalltag: Noch viel Spielraum für Verbesserung

25.04.2025
DGK-Jahrestagung 2025
Kongressbericht

Wie steht es um die Behandlung von Dyslipidämien bei Risikopatienten mit atherosklerotischer Gefäßerkrankung in Deutschland? Eine Bestandsaufnahme dazu liefert das bei der DGK-Tagung 2025 vorgestellte Forschungsprojekt LipidSnapshot.

Lohnt sich die Karotis-Revaskularisation?

25.04.2025
Karotisstenose
Nachrichten

Die medikamentöse Therapie für Menschen mit Karotisstenosen hat sich in den vergangenen Dekaden verbessert. Braucht es also noch einen invasiven Eingriff zur Revaskularisation der Halsschlagader bei geringem bis moderatem Risiko für einen ipsilateralen Schlaganfall?

EKG Essentials: EKG befunden mit System (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

In diesem CME-Kurs können Sie Ihr Wissen zur EKG-Befundung anhand von zwölf Video-Tutorials auffrischen und 10 CME-Punkte sammeln.
Praxisnah, relevant und mit vielen Tipps & Tricks vom Profi.

Jetzt 10 CME-Punkte sammeln

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study design

Patient involvement

Participants and randomisation

Intervention procedures

High-intensity resistance training

Usual care

Outcome assessments

Quality of life

Functional capacity, muscle power and strength

IMACS disease activity and disease damage core set measures

Statistical analysis

Sample size

Statistical analysis

Results

Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics

Primary outcome

Secondary outcomes

Quality of life—MCS

Functional capacity, muscle power and strength

IMACS disease activity core set measures

Adverse events

Per protocol analysis

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Congress abstracts

Ethical approval

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin