Trial Report Effectiveness of circuit training in pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with COPD, post-COVID syndrome and asthma, 2025, Naas et al

[Wyva]

Saoussen Naas, Dóra Kolozsvári, Luca Varga, Zsófia Tassó, Dániel Hammer, Erik Palmer, Lőrinc Polivka, Zsuzsanna Kováts, Veronika Müller, and János Tamás Varg

Abstract​

Introduction​

Pulmonary rehabilitation plays a central role in the management of chronic respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), post-COVID syndrome, and asthma. Circuit training is a well-established method in COPD, but has been less studied in post-COVID and asthma. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a structured circuit training program on pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and dyspnea across these three groups.

Methodology​

A prospective, quasi-experimental study was conducted with 30 patients (15 COPD, 11 post-COVID, 4 asthma). Participants completed a 12-week supervised circuit training program, which was delivered four times per week in 60-min sessions. Assessments at baseline and post-intervention included spirometry (FEV1, FVC, TLC, IVC), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score.

Results​

In COPD patients, FEV1 increased by 7.7% of the predicted value (P < 0.001), FVC by 5.7% (P < 0.01), and 6MWD by 59 m (P < 0.01), with mMRC decreasing from 3.2 ± 0.8 to 1.4 ± 0.6 (P < 0.01). In post-COVID participants, FEV1 increased by 9.1% (P < 0.001), FVC by 6.6% (P < 0.001), and 6MWD by 82 m (P < 0.01), while mMRC improved from 3.5 ± 0.9 to 1.4 ± 0.6 (P < 0.01). Asthma patients demonstrated a 4.9% increase in FEV1 (P = 0.012), a 3.5% increase in FVC (P = 0.045), and a 41-m increase in 6MWD (P < 0.01), with mMRC improving from 2.7 ± 0.7 to 1.5 ± 0.5 (P < 0.01). IVC improved in all groups (P ≤ 0.051). There were no adverse events; adherence exceeded 85%.

Conclusion​

Circuit training produced clinically meaningful spirometric improvements in COPD, as well as functional and symptomatic benefits across all groups. The findings support circuit training as a safe, feasible, and scalable modality in pulmonary rehabilitation for heterogeneous respiratory populations.

Open access: https://akjournals.com/view/journal...025.00713/article-10.1556-2060.2025.00713.xml

 

[Wyva]

For post-COVID-19 patients, progression was applied more cautiously with pacing strategies and symptom monitoring to prevent post-exertional malaise and autonomic dysfunction [33]. This structured yet individualized progression allowed for consistent advancement while minimizing the risk of overexertion or adverse events.

 

[Eleanor]

These improvements in pulmonary function were most clinically relevant in COPD, whereas in asthma and post-COVID patients—who already had near-normal baseline values—changes remained within normal functional limits.

 

[Utsikt]

The authors even fail to mention that lack of a control group in the limitations.

 

[rvallee]

The authors even fail to mention that lack of a control group in the limitations.

Which in turn means that peer reviewers and editors also failed to notice it. Or don't care.

As quality control processes go it's, uh, pretty damn poor.

 

[Sean]

Bordering on habitual criminal negligence, IMO.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I wonder what is actually meant by 'pulmonary rehabilitation'? I know of no evidence for exercises improving lung function. They may improve cardiac function and muscle bulk but how could they change the lungs?

 

[rvallee]

I wonder what is actually meant by 'pulmonary rehabilitation'? I know of no evidence for exercises improving lung function. They may improve cardiac function and muscle bulk but how could they change the lungs?

I've read some things about some exercises, typically something like using a wind instrument, produce measurable benefits in some respiratory function measures. Higher respiratory volume, and so on.

Whether those benefits actually mean anything is a different matter, but it seems that much like the idea of doing exercises yields the ability to do better at those exercises in a measurable way, it's considered a valuable benefit simply because it can be measured. How can someone be against a measurable benefit? It's not as if context matters. Oh, wait, it does.

This is the main reason why measuring the target is a bad idea. They make something that can be measured to be a target, have some people exercise and move the needle a tiny bit for that target, and bam! they have evidence-based benefits. The plan has become the objective has become the plan.

Ironically, this is very much like the longevity movement and the physiology optimizers who keep boasting how this or that measurable benefit means their strict anti-aging regimen must work. It's the wellness cult, but validated by health care system. For reasons. I can't think of anything other than the fact that they can boast of measurable benefits, but that argument loses a lot of weight to someone who is aware of how it doesn't actually matter, as all the rehabilitation boasts about us, which lack a single measurable benefit, clearly show.