Effect of a Telerehabilitation program in sarcoidosis.

Background: Sarcoidosis can lead to variable periods of sickness and unemployment. Rehabilitation is recommended in sarcoidosis to improve exercise capacity. Therefore, focus on creating different and flexible rehabilitation options adapted to the needs of working patients is warranted to keep patients with sarcoidosis employed and to reduce the socioeconomic burden. Telerehabilitation (TR) might be an alternative. We investigated the usefulness and effectiveness of TR on exercise capacity in patients with sarcoidosis. Method: Single-center, prospective, randomized study including stable patients with sarcoidosis who were enrolled in either a control group where they received the usual standard of care (not including rehabilitation) or in the 3 months TR group composed of video and chat-consultations with a physiotherapist and workout sessions with a virtual autonomous physiotherapist agent (VAPA) (1). 6-minute-walk-test (6MWT), forced vital capacity (FVC), diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), isometric voluntary contraction (MVC), 7 days pedometry, Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire for interstitial lung disease (SGRQ-I), The King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease Questionnaire (KBILD) and General Anxiety Disorder-7 Questionnaire (GAD7) were tested before and after 3 months of TR, and after 3- and 6 months follow-up. Patient satisfaction was measured with a 5-point scale (5 very satisfied) and adherence was calculated as percent of tasks and time spent training. Adverse events were documented. Results: Thirty patients aged 53.9±13.5 years, male 63.3%, FVC% 88.9±18.8, DLCO% 65.2±16.0, 6MWT 513.1±141.3 were included. Fifteen patients were randomized to TR with VAPA and 15 patients to the control group. Differences in meters walked (6MWTD) between groups was at baseline (-28.9 m (p=0.58)), after 3 (+25.8 m (p=0.57)), 6 (+48.4 m (p=0.39)) and 9 months (+77.3 m (p=0.18)) follow-up in favor of telerehabilitation. No differences were observed in MVC, 7 days pedometry, SGRQ-I, KBILD or GAD7. Exercise adherence in the intervention group was 64% and average exercise time was 28 minutes per exercise session during the first 3 months. Patient satisfaction scored 3.8 ± 0.7. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion: VAPA TR did not result in any change in exercise capacity or patient-reported outcomes in this pilot study in patients with sarcoidosis. However, a statistically non-significant trend for improved 6MWTD was observed during follow-up. VAPA TR was safe, had high patient satisfaction and acceptable adherence. Further randomized studies including larger numbers of participants are needed.