Santino Thayla A, Chaves Gabriela Ss, Freitas Diana A, Fregonezi Guilherme Af, Mendonça Karla Mpp
Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Department of Physical Therapy, Av. Senador Salgado Filho, 3000, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, 59.078-970.
York University, School of Kinesiology and Health Science, Toronto, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 25;3(3):CD001277. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001277.pub4.
Breathing exercises have been widely used worldwide as a non-pharmacological therapy to treat people with asthma. Breathing exercises aim to control the symptoms of asthma and can be performed as the Papworth Method, the Buteyko breathing technique, yogic breathing, deep diaphragmatic breathing or any other similar intervention that manipulates the breathing pattern. The training of breathing usually focuses on tidal and minute volume and encourages relaxation, exercise at home, the modification of breathing pattern, nasal breathing, holding of breath, lower rib cage and abdominal breathing.
To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of breathing exercises in the management of people with asthma.
To identify relevant studies we searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED and performed handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also consulted trials registers and reference lists of included articles. The most recent literature search was on 4 April 2019.
We included randomised controlled trials of breathing exercises in adults with asthma compared with a control group receiving asthma education or, alternatively, with no active control group.
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis based on the random-effects model. We expressed continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with confidence intervals (CIs) of 95%. We assessed heterogeneity by inspecting the forest plots. We applied the Chi test, with a P value of 0.10 indicating statistical significance, and the I statistic, with a value greater than 50% representing a substantial level of heterogeneity. The primary outcome was quality of life.
We included nine new studies (1910 participants) in this update, resulting in a total of 22 studies involving 2880 participants in the review. Fourteen studies used Yoga as the intervention, four studies involved breathing retraining, one the Buteyko method, one the Buteyko method and pranayama, one the Papworth method and one deep diaphragmatic breathing. The studies were different from one another in terms of type of breathing exercise performed, number of participants enrolled, number of sessions completed, period of follow-up, outcomes reported and statistical presentation of data. Asthma severity in participants from the included studies ranged from mild to moderate, and the samples consisted solely of outpatients. Twenty studies compared breathing exercise with inactive control, and two with asthma education control groups. Meta-analysis was possible for the primary outcome quality of life and the secondary outcomes asthma symptoms, hyperventilation symptoms, and some lung function variables. Assessment of risk of bias was impaired by incomplete reporting of methodological aspects of most of the included studies. We did not include adverse effects as an outcome in the review. Breathing exercises versus inactive control For quality of life, measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), meta-analysis showed improvement favouring the breathing exercises group at three months (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 4 studies, 974 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and at six months the OR was 1.34 for the proportion of people with at least 0.5 unit improvement in AQLQ, (95% CI 0.97 to 1.86; 1 study, 655 participants). For asthma symptoms, measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), meta-analysis at up to three months was inconclusive, MD of -0.15 units (95% CI -2.32 to 2.02; 1 study, 115 participants; low-certainty evidence), and was similar over six months (MD -0.08 units, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.07; 1 study, 449 participants). For hyperventilation symptoms, measured by the Nijmegen Questionnaire (from four to six months), meta-analysis showed less symptoms with breathing exercises (MD -3.22, 95% CI -6.31 to -0.13; 2 studies, 118 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but this was not shown at six months (MD 0.63, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.17; 2 studies, 521 participants). Meta-analyses for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) measured at up to three months was inconclusive, MD -0.10 L, (95% CI -0.32 to 0.12; 4 studies, 252 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, for FEV % of predicted, an improvement was observed in favour of the breathing exercise group (MD 6.88%, 95% CI 5.03 to 8.73; five studies, 618 participants). Breathing exercises versus asthma education For quality of life, one study measuring AQLQ was inconclusive up to three months (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.34; 1 study, 183 participants). When assessed from four to six months, the results favoured breathing exercises (MD 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.68; 1 study, 183 participants). Hyperventilation symptoms measured by the Nijmegen Questionnaire were inconclusive up to three months (MD -1.24, 95% CI -3.23 to 0.75; 1 study, 183 participants), but favoured breathing exercises from four to six months (MD -3.16, 95% CI -5.35 to -0.97; 1 study, 183 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Breathing exercises may have some positive effects on quality of life, hyperventilation symptoms, and lung function. Due to some methodological differences among included studies and studies with poor methodology, the quality of evidence for the measured outcomes ranged from moderate to very low certainty according to GRADE criteria. In addition, further studies including full descriptions of treatment methods and outcome measurements are required.
呼吸练习作为一种非药物疗法,已在全球范围内广泛用于治疗哮喘患者。呼吸练习旨在控制哮喘症状,可采用帕普沃思法、布泰科呼吸法、瑜伽呼吸法、深度膈肌呼吸法或任何其他类似的改变呼吸模式的干预措施。呼吸训练通常侧重于潮气量和分钟通气量,并鼓励放松、在家锻炼、改变呼吸模式、鼻腔呼吸、屏气、下胸廓呼吸和腹部呼吸。
评估呼吸练习对哮喘患者管理效果的证据。
为识别相关研究,我们检索了考克兰图书馆、医学期刊数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库、心理学文摘数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库和联合与补充医学数据库,并对呼吸领域期刊和会议摘要进行了手工检索。我们还查阅了试验注册库和纳入文章的参考文献列表。最近一次文献检索时间为2019年4月4日。
我们纳入了将哮喘成人患者的呼吸练习与接受哮喘教育的对照组或无积极对照组进行比较的随机对照试验。
两位综述作者独立评估研究质量并提取数据。我们使用Review Manager 5软件基于随机效应模型进行数据分析。我们将连续结果表示为平均差(MDs),置信区间(CIs)为95%。我们通过检查森林图评估异质性。我们应用卡方检验,P值为0.10表示具有统计学意义,I统计量的值大于50%表示存在实质性异质性水平。主要结局为生活质量。
本次更新纳入了9项新研究(1910名参与者),使综述中总共涉及22项研究、2880名参与者。14项研究采用瑜伽作为干预措施,4项研究涉及呼吸再训练,1项采用布泰科方法,1项采用布泰科方法和调息法,1项采用帕普沃思方法,1项采用深度膈肌呼吸法。这些研究在进行呼吸练习类型、纳入参与者数量、完成疗程数量、随访时间、报告结局和数据统计呈现方面彼此不同。纳入研究中参与者的哮喘严重程度从中度到重度不等,样本仅包括门诊患者。20项研究将呼吸练习与无干预对照组进行比较,2项与哮喘教育对照组进行比较。对于主要结局生活质量以及次要结局哮喘症状、过度通气症状和一些肺功能变量,可以进行荟萃分析。由于大多数纳入研究在方法学方面报告不完整,因此对偏倚风险的评估受到影响。我们在综述中未将不良反应作为结局纳入。呼吸练习与无干预对照组相比 对于通过哮喘生活质量问卷(AQLQ)测量的生活质量,荟萃分析显示在三个月时呼吸练习组有改善(MD 0.42,95% CI 0.17至0.68;4项研究,974名参与者;中等确定性证据),在六个月时,AQLQ至少改善0.5个单位的人群比例的比值比为1.34(95% CI 0.97至1.86;1项研究,655名参与者)。对于通过哮喘控制问卷(ACQ)测量的哮喘症状,三个月内的荟萃分析尚无定论,MD为 -0.15个单位(95% CI -2.32至2.02;1项研究,115名参与者;低确定性证据)并且在六个月时情况类似(MD -0.08个单位,95% CI -0.22至0.07;1项研究,449名参与者)。对于通过奈梅亨问卷测量的过度通气症状(四至六个月),荟萃分析显示呼吸练习组症状较少(MD -3.22,95% CI -6.31至 -0.13;2项研究,118名参与者;中等确定性证据),但在六个月时未显示此结果(MD 0.63,95% CI -0.九十至2.17;2项研究,521名参与者)。对于在三个月内测量的一秒用力呼气量(FEV1)的荟萃分析尚无定论,MD为 -0.10 L(95% CI -0.32至0.12;4项研究,252名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。然而,对于预测FEV%,观察到呼吸练习组有改善(MD 6.88%,95% CI 5.03至8.73;5项研究,618名参与者)。呼吸练习与哮喘教育相比 对于生活质量,一项测量AQLQ的研究在三个月内尚无定论(MD 0.04,95% CI -0.26至0.34;1项研究,183名参与者)。当在四至六个月进行评估时,结果支持呼吸练习(MD 0.38,95% CI 0.08至0.68;1项研究,183名参与者)。通过奈梅亨问卷测量的过度通气症状在三个月内尚无定论(MD -1.24,95% CI -3.23至0.75;1项研究,183名参与者),但在四至六个月时支持呼吸练习(MD -3.16,95% CI -5.35至 -0.97;1项研究,183名参与者)。
呼吸练习可能对生活质量、过度通气症状和肺功能有一些积极影响。由于纳入研究之间存在一些方法学差异以及方法学较差的研究,根据GRADE标准,所测量结局的证据质量从中等确定性到非常低确定性不等。此外,需要进一步开展包括治疗方法和结局测量完整描述的研究。