OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of supervised training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome.

DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched from inception to March 2020.

STUDY SELECTION: Independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials comparing supervised training with (1) no training or (2) self-training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome lasting for at least 1 month. Critical outcomes were shoulder pain, function, and patient-perceived effect. Important outcomes included other potential benefits and adverse events at 3-month follow-up.

DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data for the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 1, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies (n=597, 43% female) were included. Supervised training resulted in larger improvements than no training on pain (at rest: n=286; mean difference [MD], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-3.06 on 0-10 scale; during movement: n=353; MD, 1.84; 95% CI,0.91-2.76), function (n=396; standardized MD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.07-0.52), and patient-perceived effect (n=118; risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.87-2.34). Supervised training had potential benefits regarding quality of life, return to work, dropout, and training adherence, albeit more patients reported mild, transient pain after training. Supervised training and self-training showed equal improvements on pain (n=44) and function (n=76), with no data describing patient-perceived effect. Certainty of evidence was low for critical outcomes and low-moderate for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: Supervised training might be superior to no training and equally effective as self-training on critical and important outcomes. Based on low-moderate certainty of evidence, these findings support a weak recommendation for supervised training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effect of exercise therapy on inflammatory activity in synovitis and bone marrow lesions (BMLs) assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with knee OA.

METHODS: 60 patients with knee OA were randomized 1:1 to 12 weeks of supervised exercise therapy 3 times/week (ET) or a no-attention control group (CG). Synovitis and BMLs were assessed with static MRI with and without contrast and with dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI). DCE-MRI data was quantified using pixel-by-pixel methodology based on analysis of signal intensity curves. Pain was assessed by the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Analyses of covariance were used assessing group differences in changes from baseline to week 12.

RESULTS: 33 patients adhered to the protocol and had valid MRI and KOOS data (ET, n = 16, CG, n = 17). Statistically significant and clinically relevant group difference in favour of ET was seen in KOOS pain change (-11.7 points, 95%CI: -20.1 to -3.4). There were statistically significant group differences in DCE-MRI assessed synovitis in the anterior synovium with unchanged inflammatory activity in the ET group compared to the CG. There were no group differences in BMLs and static MRI.

CONCLUSION: Inflammatory activity was unchanged, and pain was reduced in patients with knee OA adhering to 12 weeks of exercise therapy compared to a no-attention control group. The reduction in pain was not explained by changes in inflammatory activity. Overall, the results suggest that exercise is not harmful in knee OA. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01545258.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle intervention, i.e. diet and physical activity, forms the basis for care of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The current physical activity recommendation for T2D is aerobic training for 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous intensity, supplemented with resistance training 2-3 days/week, with no more than two consecutive days without physical activity. The rationale for the recommendations is based on studies showing a reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). This reduction is supposed to be caused by increased insulin sensitivity in muscle and adipose tissue, whereas knowledge about effects on abnormalities in the liver and pancreas are scarce, with the majority of evidence stemming from in vitro and animal studies. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of the volume of exercise training as an adjunct to dietary therapy in order to improve the pancreatic β-cell function in T2D patients less than 7 years from diagnosis. The objective of this protocol for the DOSE-EX trial is to describe the scientific rationale in detail and to provide explicit information about study procedures and planned analyses.

METHODS/DESIGN: In a parallel-group, 4-arm assessor-blinded randomised clinical trial, 80 patients with T2D will be randomly allocated (1:1:1:1, stratified by sex) to 16 weeks in either of the following groups: (1) no intervention (CON), (2) dietary intervention (DCON), (3) dietary intervention and supervised moderate volume exercise (MED), or (4) dietary intervention and supervised high volume exercise (HED). Enrolment was initiated December 15th, 2018, and will continue until N = 80 or December 1st, 2021. Primary outcome is pancreatic beta-cell function assessed as change in late-phase disposition index (DI) from baseline to follow-up assessed by hyperglycaemic clamp. Secondary outcomes include measures of cardiometabolic risk factors and the effect on subsequent complications related to T2D. The study was approved by The Scientific Ethical Committee at the Capital Region of Denmark (H-18038298).

TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Effects of Different Doses of Exercise on Pancreatic β-cell Function in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes (DOSE-EX), NCT03769883, registered 10 December 2018 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03769883 ). Any modification to the protocol, study design, and changes in written participant information will be approved by The Scientific Ethical Committee at the Capital Region of Denmark before effectuation.

DISCUSSION: The data from this study will add knowledge to which volume of exercise training in combination with a dietary intervention is needed to improve β-cell function in T2D. Secondarily, our results will elucidate mechanisms of physical activity mitigating the development of micro- and macrovascular complications correlated with T2D.

There is substantial evidence documenting the effects of behavioural interventions on weight loss (WL). However, behavioural approaches to initial WL are followed by some degree of longer-term weight regain, and large trials focusing on evidence-based approaches to weight loss maintenance (WLM) have generally only demonstrated small beneficial effects. The current state-of-the-art in behavioural interventions for WL and WLM raises questions of (i) how we define the relationship between WL and WLM, (ii) how energy balance (EB) systems respond to WL and influence behaviours that primarily drive weight regain, (iii) how intervention content, mode of delivery and intensity should be targeted to keep weight off, (iv) which mechanisms of action in complex interventions may prevent weight regain and (v) how to design studies and interventions to maximise effective longer-term weight management. In considering these issues a writing team within the NoHoW Consortium was convened to elaborate a position statement, and behaviour change and obesity experts were invited to discuss these positions and to refine them. At present the evidence suggests that developing the skills to self-manage EB behaviours leads to more effective WLM. However, the effects of behaviour change interventions for WL and WLM are still relatively modest and our understanding of the factors that disrupt and undermine self-management of eating and physical activity is limited. These factors include physiological resistance to weight loss, gradual compensatory changes in eating and physical activity and reactive processes related to stress, emotions, rewards and desires that meet psychological needs. Better matching of evidence-based intervention content to quantitatively tracked EB behaviours and the specific needs of individuals may improve outcomes. Improving objective longitudinal tracking of energy intake and energy expenditure over time would provide a quantitative framework in which to understand the dynamics of behaviour change, mechanisms of action of behaviour change interventions and user engagement with intervention components to potentially improve weight management intervention design and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Weight-loss programmes often achieve short-term success though subsequent weight regain is common. The ability to identify predictive factors of regain early in the weight maintenance phase is crucial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the associations between short-term weight variability and long-term weight outcomes in individuals engaged in a weight-loss maintenance intervention.

METHODS: The study was a secondary analysis from The NoHoW trial, an 18-month weight maintenance intervention in individuals who recently lost ≥5% body weight. Eligible participants (n = 715, 64% women, BMI = 29.2 (SD 5.0) kg/m2, age = 45.8 (SD 11.5) years) provided body-weight data by smart scale (Fitbit Aria 2) over 18 months. Variability in body weight was calculated by linear and non-linear methods over the first 6, 9 and 12 weeks. These estimates were used to predict percentage weight change at 6, 12, and 18 months using both crude and adjusted multiple linear regression models.

RESULTS: Greater non-linear weight variability over the first 6, 9 and 12 weeks was associated with increased subsequent weight in all comparisons; as was greater linear weight variability measured over 12 weeks (up to AdjR2 = 4.7%). Following adjustment, 6-week weight variability did not predict weight change in any model, though greater 9-week weight variability by non-linear methods was associated with increased body-weight change at 12 (∆AdjR2 = 1.2%) and 18 months (∆AdjR2 = 1.3%) and by linear methods at 18 months (∆AdjR2 = 1.1%). Greater non-linear weight variability measured over 12 weeks was associated with increased weight at 12 (∆AdjR2 = 1.4%) and 18 (∆AdjR2 = 2.2%) months; and 12-week linear variability was associated with increased weight at 12 (∆AdjR2 = 2.1%) and 18 (∆AdjR2 = 3.6%) months.

CONCLUSION: Body-weight variability over the first 9 and 12 weeks of a weight-loss maintenance intervention weakly predicted increased weight at 12 and 18 months. These results suggest a potentially important role in continuously measuring body weight and estimating weight variability.