LONDON—In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), telerehabilitation is a convenient and practical method of performing physical therapy with efficacy comparable to that of conventional in-person physical therapy, as measured by objective outcomes of gait and balance. Telerehabilitation should be investigated further and used more extensively as a means of improving function and quality of life in MS, according to researchers who spoke at the 32nd Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS (ECTRIMS).
MS often results in physical and cognitive disability. Rehabilitation methods that include physical therapy can achieve functional improvement of established physical deficits. Factors such as availability, geographical distance, mobility, transportation, and cost, however, limit access to specialized rehabilitation services. Telecommunication technology opens the possibility of supervising and directing a physical therapy program remotely through audio and visual communication in real time.
Gabriel Pardo, MD, Director of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation MS Center of Excellence in Oklahoma City, and colleagues sought to demonstrate the feasibility of a tele-health rehabilitation program in individuals with ambulatory deficits secondary to MS. The researchers also intended to evaluate the efficacy of the tele-health rehabilitation program and compare it with that of conventional physical therapy.
Gabriel Pardo, MD
Dr. Pardo and colleagues included 30 individuals in a single-center, prospective, randomized, three-arm, evaluator-blinded study that lasted for eight weeks. About 69% of participants were female, and the population’s mean age was 54.7. Approximately 60% of participants had relapsing-remitting MS, 23% had secondary progressive MS, and 17% had primary progressive MS. The population’s mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 4.3.
All participants performed a home-based exercise program (HEP) unsupervised on five days per week for eight weeks. Participants were randomized to three intervention groups. Group 1 underwent HEP alone. Group 2 underwent HEP plus remote physical therapy supervised via audio and visual real-time telecommunication two to three times per week. Group 3 underwent HEP plus in-person physical therapy at the medical facility two to three times per week. The study outcomes were multiple measurements of gait and balance, as well as patient-reported outcomes. Selected outcomes were performed with a computerized system (ie, Neurocom SmartBalance).
Functional gait assessment improved from baseline in all groups. Improvements were no different between the telerehabilitation and the conventional PT groups, but this finding was not statistically significant. Other outcomes that were similar for Groups 2 and 3 were the Timed 25-Foot Walk, stride length, the Berg balance scale, step width, tandem sway, tandem width, limits of stability, and the sensory organization test. One participant dropped out of the study because of an MS relapse.
The researchers observed no problems with adherence in any of the groups. “If we are to demonstrate a more significant intergroup difference, we need [larger] cohorts, and consequently, further research is needed,” Dr. Pardo concluded.