School of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, UK.
Division of Respiratory Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Thorax. 2021 Jun;76(6):591-600. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-216007. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
The benefits of unsupervised exercise programmes in obstructive lung disease are unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence regarding the efficacy of unsupervised exercise versus non-exercise-based usual care in patients with obstructive lung disease.
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, UK Clinical Trials Gateway and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched from inception to April 2020 for randomised trials comparing unsupervised exercise programmes with non-exercise-based usual care in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis or asthma. Primary outcomes were exercise capacity, quality of life, mortality, exacerbations and respiratory cause hospitalisations.
Sixteen trials (13 COPD, 2 asthma, 1 chronic bronchitis: 1184 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Only data on COPD populations were available for meta-analysis. Unsupervised exercise resulted in a statistically but not clinically significant improvement in the 6-Minute Walk Test (n=5, MD=22.0 m, 95% CI 4.4 to 39.6 m, p=0.01). However, unsupervised exercise did lead to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (n=4, MD=-11.8 points, 95% CI -21.2 to -2.3 points, p=0.01) and Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire domains (dyspnoea: n=4, MD=0.5 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.8 points, p<0.01; fatigue: n=4, MD=0.7 points, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.0 points, p<0.01; emotion: n=4, MD=0.5 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.7 points, p<0.01; mastery: unable to perform meta-analysis) compared with non-exercise-based usual care.
This review demonstrates clinical benefits of unsupervised exercise interventions on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. High-quality randomised trials are needed to examine the effectiveness of prescription methods.
监督下的运动方案对阻塞性肺部疾病的益处尚不清楚。本系统评价的目的是综合评估在阻塞性肺部疾病患者中,非监督运动与非运动为基础的常规护理相比的疗效。
从建库到 2020 年 4 月,我们检索了电子数据库(MEDLINE、CINAHL、Embase、补充和综合医学数据库、Web of Science、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台)和试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov、当前对照试验、英国临床试验注册网关和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台),以比较成人慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)、非囊性纤维化支气管扩张症或哮喘患者中,非监督运动方案与非运动为基础的常规护理相比的随机试验。主要结局为运动能力、生活质量、死亡率、加重和呼吸相关住院。
16 项试验(13 项 COPD、2 项哮喘、1 项慢性支气管炎:1184 名患者)符合纳入标准。仅对 COPD 人群的数据进行了荟萃分析。非监督运动在 6 分钟步行试验(n=5,MD=22.0 m,95%CI 4.4 至 39.6 m,p=0.01)中产生了统计学但无临床意义的改善。然而,非监督运动确实导致圣乔治呼吸问卷(n=4,MD=-11.8 分,95%CI-21.2 至-2.3 分,p=0.01)和慢性呼吸道疾病问卷各领域(呼吸困难:n=4,MD=0.5 分,95%CI 0.1 至 0.8 分,p<0.01;疲劳:n=4,MD=0.7 分,95%CI 0.4 至 1.0 分,p<0.01;情绪:n=4,MD=0.5 分,95%CI 0.2 至 0.7 分,p<0.01;掌握:无法进行荟萃分析)与非运动为基础的常规护理相比有统计学意义和临床意义的改善。
本综述表明,非监督运动干预对 COPD 患者的健康相关生活质量有临床益处。需要高质量的随机试验来检验处方方法的有效性。