Loeppenthin K, Esbensen BA, Klausen JM, Østergaard M, Christensen JF, Tolver A, Thomsen T, Bech JS, Jennum P. Efficacy and Acceptability of Intermittent Aerobic Exercise on Polysomnography-Measured Sleep in People With Rheumatoid Arthritis With Self-Reported Sleep Disturbance: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
ACR Open Rheumatol 2022;
4:395-405. [PMID:
35089655 PMCID:
PMC9096512 DOI:
10.1002/acr2.11403]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2021] [Revised: 08/14/2021] [Accepted: 08/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective
This study's objective was to investigate the efficacy and acceptability of intermittent aerobic exercise training on sleep parameters, fatigue, pain, depressive symptoms, physical function, and cardiorespiratory fitness in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods
Thirty‐eight people with RA were assigned to intermittent aerobic exercise training (three sessions/week for 6 weeks; intervention group, n = 17) or usual care (control group, n = 21). The primary outcome was a change in polysomnography‐assessed sleep efficiency from baseline to the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes were sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), fatigue (Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi‐Dimensional Questionnaire), depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies‐Depression), and cardiorespiratory fitness (watt max test).
Results
No between‐group differences were found in changes in polysomnography‐assessed sleep efficiency (0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.02 to 0.09, P = 0.17). In the intervention group, sleep efficiency was improved significantly from baseline (0.84; 95% CI: 0.80‐0.88) compared with the end of the intervention (6 weeks) (0.88; 95% CI: 0.85‐0.92); however, there was no significant difference in the control group. Fatigue and depression measures were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group. Between‐group differences were overall fatigue (−16.1; 95% CI: −25.1 to −7.0, P = 0.001), physical fatigue (−5.0; 95% CI: −7.3 to −2.7, P = 0.0001), cognitive fatigue (−2.4; 95% CI: −4.2 to 0.6, P = 0.009), living with fatigue (−2.5; 95% CI: −4.5 to −0.5, P = 0.01), and depressive symptoms (−6.8; 95% CI: −12.4 to −1.1, P = 0.02).
Conclusion
The intervention yielded no significantly better sleep efficiency compared with usual care. However, aspects of fatigue, including physical and cognitive fatigue, and depressive symptoms were significantly improved in the intervention group.
Collapse