Effect of a Home-Based, Walking Exercise Behavior Change Intervention vs Usual Care on Walking in Adults With Peripheral Artery Disease: The MOSAIC Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Home-based walking exercise interventions are recommended for people with peripheral artery disease (PAD), but evidence of their efficacy has been mixed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a home-based, walking exercise behavior change intervention delivered by physical therapists in adults with PAD and intermittent claudication compared with usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 190 adults with PAD and intermittent claudication in 6 hospitals in the United Kingdom between January 2018 and March 2020; final follow-up was September 8, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive a walking exercise behavior change intervention delivered by physical therapists trained to use a motivational approach (n = 95) or usual care (n = 95). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 6-minute walking distance at 3-month follow-up (minimal clinically important difference, 8-20 m). There were 8 secondary outcomes, 3 of which were the Walking Estimated Limitation Calculated by History (WELCH) questionnaire (score range, 0 [best performance] to 100), the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (score range, 0 to 80 [80 indicates negative perception of illness]), and the Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire (score range, 3 to 21 [21 indicates best attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, or intentions]); a minimal clinically important difference was not defined for these instruments. RESULTS: Among 190 randomized participants (mean age 68 years, 30% women, 79% White race, mean baseline 6-minute walking distance, 361.0 m), 148 (78%) completed 3-month follow-up. The 6-minute walking distance changed from 352.9 m at baseline to 380.6 m at 3 months in the intervention group and from 369.8 m to 372.1 m in the usual care group (adjusted mean between-group difference, 16.7 m [95% CI, 4.2 m to 29.2 m]; P = .009). Of the 8 secondary outcomes, 5 were not statistically significant. At 6-month follow-up, baseline WELCH scores changed from 18.0 to 27.8 in the intervention group and from 20.7 to 20.7 in the usual care group (adjusted mean between-group difference, 7.4 [95% CI, 2.5 to 12.3]; P = .003), scores on the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire changed from 45.7 to 38.9 in the intervention group and from 44.0 to 45.8 in the usual care group (adjusted mean between-group difference, -6.6 [95% CI, -9.9 to -3.4]; P