Matthew N. Bartels

Background: Aerobic exercise (AE) training has been shown to enhance aerobic fitness in people with schizophrenia. Traditionally, such training has been administered in person at gyms or other communal exercise spaces. However, following the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinics transitioned their services to telehealth-based delivery. Yet, at present, there is scarce information about the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of telehealth-based AE in this population. Objective: To examine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of trainer-led, at-home, telehealth-based AE in individuals with schizophrenia. Methods: We analyzed data from the AE arm (n=37) of a single-blind, randomized clinical trial examining the impact of a 12-week AE intervention in people with schizophrenia. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the AE trial intervention transitioned from in-person to at-home, telehealth-based delivery of AE, with the training frequency and duration remaining identical. We compared the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the delivery of trainer-led AE training among participants undergoing in-person (pre–COVID-19; n=23) versus at-home telehealth AE (post–COVID-19; n=14). Results: The telehealth and in-person participants attended a similar number of exercise sessions across the 12-week interventions (26.8, SD 10.2 vs 26.1, SD 9.7, respectively; P=.84) and had similar number of weeks with at least 1 exercise session (10.4, SD 3.4 vs 10.6, SD 3.1, respectively; P=.79). The telehealth-based AE was associated with a significantly lower drop-out rate (telehealth: 0/14, 0%; in-person: 7/23, 30.4%; P=.04). There were no significant group differences in total time spent exercising (telehealth: 1246, SD 686 min; in-person: 1494, SD 580 min; P=.28); however, over the 12-week intervention, the telehealth group had a significantly lower proportion of session-time exercising at or above target intensity (telehealth: 33.3%, SD 21.4%; in-person: 63.5%, SD 16.3%; P<.001). There were no AE-related serious adverse events associated with either AE delivery format. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the percentage of participants experiencing minor or moderate adverse events, such as muscle soreness, joint pain, blisters, or dyspnea (telehealth: 3/14, 21%; in-person: 5/19, 26%; P>.99) or in the percentage of weeks per participant with at least 1 exercise-related adverse event (telehealth: 31%, SD 33%; in-person: 40%, SD 33%; P=.44). There were no significant differences between the telehealth versus in-person groups regarding changes in aerobic fitness as indexed by maximum oxygen consumption (VO₂max; P=.27). Conclusions: Our findings provide preliminary support for the delivery of telehealth-based AE for individuals with schizophrenia. Our results indicate that in-home telehealth-based AE is feasible and safe in this population, although when available, in-person AE appears preferable given the opportunity for social interactions and the higher intensity of exercises. We discuss the findings’ clinical implications, specifically within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as review potential challenges for the implementation of telehealth-based AE among people with schizophrenia.

Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial. Objective: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major public health concern that will continue to grow with the expected aging of the population. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical effect of a personalized, home-based biomechanical intervention compared to traditional physical therapy in patients with CLBP. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial. One-hundred and sixty-two patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to a home-based biomechanical intervention (HBBI, AposHealth) or traditional physical therapy (TPT), respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain at 52 weeks, using a standard Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included pain and function metrics, quality of life and objective spatio-temporal gait test. A Linear Mixed Model assessed changes over time across all study visits. Results: A significant reduction in NRS was found after 52 weeks with a superiority effect of the HBBI arm compared to TPT (F = 13.82, P < 0.001). Patients in the HBBI arm demonstrated a marginal mean reduction of 3.5 points, from 6.2 to 2.7 (a 56% reduction), while patients in the TPT arm reported a mean decrease of 1.8 points from 6.9 to 5.1 (a 26% reduction). Conclusions: A new foot-worn, home-based, biomechanical intervention for patients with chronic non-specific back pain was found to be clinically effective. Given the lack of non-surgical, non-pharmacological interventions for this populations, this treatment might serve as an adjunct to the current standard of care.

Background: The annual demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) will increase by 182%, from more than 700,000 in 2014 to 1.2M in the year 2030, placing an immense financial and social burden on healthcare systems to control medical costs and quality of care. This study aimed to examine the long-term effect of a home-based, non-surgical biomechanical intervention on surgery incidence amongst patients with moderate-severe knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: This is a retrospective registry review done at the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center. Between September 2015 and December 2018, 95 patients (81% females, mean age 62.6± 8.3 years) diagnosed with primary knee OA were referred to receive a new non-invasive biomechanical foot-worn device after exhausting other non-surgical care. Patients were personally fitted with a non-invasive, biomechanical device, that alters the foot’s pressure points to reduce loads, minimize symptoms, and promote neuromuscular control training using adjustable, convex pods under the sole. Patients used the device for short periods during regular home/work activities. The primary outcome was the occurrence of knee surgery during an average follow-up time of 5.6 years. TKA incidence was compared to that of a reference group of patients with knee OA who were referred to receive traditional physical therapy (PT). Results: Of the patients who were treated with the biomechanical intervention, 12/95 patients (12.6%) had a TKA, compared to 23/67 patients (34.3%) who received traditional PT and had a TKA. Conclusion: The use of the biomechanical intervention was associated with avoiding TKA in more than 87% of patients at five years. Increased use of biomechanical intervention to treat knee OA may help reduce some of the burden on healthcare and society associated with end-stage knee OA by delaying or avoiding surgery.

Objective: The aim of the study was to present: (1) physiatric care delivery amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, (2) challenges, (3) data from the first cohort of post–COVID-19 inpatient rehabilitation facility patients, and (4) lessons learned by a research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions. Design: For this clinical descriptive retrospective study, data were extracted from post–COVID-19 patient records treated at a research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation inpatient rehabilitation facilities (May 1–June 30, 2020) to characterize admission criteria, physical space, precautions, bed numbers, staffing, employee wellness, leadership, and family communication. For comparison, data from the Uniform Data System and eRehabData databases were analyzed. The research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation members discussed experiences and lessons learned. Results: The COVID-19 patients (N = 320) were treated during the study period. Most patients were male, average age of 61.9 yrs, and 40.9% were White. The average acute care length of stay before inpatient rehabilitation facility admission was 24.5 days; mean length of stay at inpatient rehabilitation facilities was 15.2 days. The rehabilitation research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions reported a greater proportion of COVID-19 patients discharged to home compared with prepandemic data. Some institutions reported higher changes in functional scores during rehabilitation admission, compared with prepandemic data. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic acutely affected patient care and overall institutional operations. The research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions responded dynamically to bed expansions/contractions, staff deployment, and innovations that facilitated safe and effective patient care.

Knee osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain are common and often coexist. There are limited studies on the impact of coexisting musculoskeletal disorders on gait parameters and its association with self-assessed functional outcome. This study compared gait parameters, self-assessed functional outcome measurements, and quality-of-life scales between patients with knee osteoarthritis against those with coexisting knee osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain using gait analysis, Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index, and Short Form-36. Three hundred sixty-seven patients underwent gait analysis after the question-based functional outcome measurement. Pain, function, and quality of life were worse in the coexisting knee osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain group (n = 197) compared with the knee osteoarthritis only group (n = 170, P = 0.017, P = 0.004, P < 0.001, P = 0.004, respectively). The coexisting knee osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain group had significantly lower gait velocity and cadence than the knee osteoarthritis group (P = 0.028 and P = 0.003). The Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index Pain subscore was associated with gait velocity (P < 0.001) in the knee osteoarthritis group, whereas Short Form-36 physical composite was associated with gait velocity (P < 0.001) in the coexisting knee osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain group. Comorbid chronic low back pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis was associated with worse pain, function, quality of life, gait velocity, and cadence. Compared with the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form-36 may be a more suitable tool to track mobility outcome measure, such as gait velocity, in the management of the coexisting knee osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain.

Introduction: Exercise is a promising intervention for clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) populations, who have attenuated positive symptoms, but evidence suggests that these youth may require tailored exercise interventions. Presently, the scope of the problem is unknown, as these youth may not be reliable reporters on fitness. This issue is compounded by the fact that there have been no investigations that utilized a formal fitness assessment in this critical population. The present study aims to determine the level of fitness in CHR youth with lab-based measures, test how effectively self-report measures characterize objective fitness indices, and explore clinical factors that may be interrupting reliable self-report-an important tool if these interventions are to be taken to scale. Methods: Forty CHR individuals completed an exercise survey and lab-based indices of fitness (i.e., VO ₂ max and BMI). Forty healthy volunteers completed lab indices of fitness and a structured clinical interview ruling out the presence of psychiatric illness. Results: CHR youth showed greater BMI and lower VO ₂ max compared to healthy volunteers. In the CHR group, abstract self-report items (perceived fitness) did not reflect lab indices of fitness, whereas specific exercise behaviors (intensity of exercise) showed stronger correlations with laboratory-based fitness measurements. Exploratory analyses suggested that positive symptoms involving grandiosity, and negative symptoms such as avolition, correlated with discrepancy between self-perception and laboratory findings of fitness. Discussion: Results suggest that CHR individuals are less objectively fit than matched controls, and that it will be important to consider unique population characteristics when weighing self-report data.

This chapter presents four case scenarios that are encountered every day at the bedside and are related to cardiovascular and pulmonary rehabilitation. Each case is provided with a list of clinical questions followed by their answers. The first case presents a 55 year-old man cardiac rehabilitation inpatient, who is now 5 days post-operative for a coronary bypass graft surgery and had severe triple vessel disease and myocardial infarction followed by an attempted angioplasty. The second case presents a 60-year-old woman cardiac rehabilitation outpatient, who had no heart attack, but just treated with an angioplasty for single vessel coronary disease and referred for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation, for illustration. The third and the fourth cases are about vascular rehabilitation and pulmonary rehabilitation, respectively. The fourth case presents a 68-year-old man, who had a 40 pack year history of smoking with severe respiratory failure.