Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Division of Child Health, Obstetrics & Gynaecology (COG), School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Aug 9;8(8):CD002768. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002768.pub5.
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (including exercise) may form an important part of regular care for people with cystic fibrosis (CF). This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical activity interventions on exercise capacity by peak oxygen uptake, lung function by forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and further important patient-relevant outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. The most recent search was on 3 March 2022. We also searched two ongoing trials registers: clinicaltrials.gov, most recently on 4 March 2022; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), most recently on 16 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing physical activity interventions of any type and a minimum intervention duration of two weeks with conventional care (no physical activity intervention) in people with CF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected RCTs for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 parallel RCTs (875 participants). The number of participants in the studies ranged from nine to 117, with a wide range of disease severity. The studies' age demographics varied: in two studies, all participants were adults; in 13 studies, participants were 18 years and younger; in one study, participants were 15 years and older; in one study, participants were 12 years and older; and seven studies included all age ranges. The active training programme lasted up to and including six months in 14 studies, and longer than six months in the remaining 10 studies. Of the 24 included studies, seven implemented a follow-up period (when supervision was withdrawn, but participants were still allowed to exercise) ranging from one to 12 months. Studies employed differing levels of supervision: in 12 studies, training was supervised; in 11 studies, it was partially supervised; and in one study, training was unsupervised. The quality of the included studies varied widely. This Cochrane Review shows that, in studies with an active training programme lasting over six months in people with CF, physical activity probably has a positive effect on exercise capacity when compared to no physical activity (usual care) (mean difference (MD) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 3.05; 6 RCTs, 348 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The magnitude of improvement in exercise capacity is interpreted as small, although study results were heterogeneous. Physical activity interventions may have no effect on lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) % predicted) (MD 2.41, 95% CI ‒0.49 to 5.31; 6 RCTs, 367 participants), HRQoL physical functioning (MD 2.19, 95% CI ‒3.42 to 7.80; 4 RCTs, 247 participants) and HRQoL respiratory domain (MD ‒0.05, 95% CI ‒3.61 to 3.51; 4 RCTs, 251 participants) at six months and longer (low-certainty evidence). One study (117 participants) reported no differences between the physical activity and control groups in the number of participants experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation by six months (incidence rate ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.94) or in the time to first exacerbation over 12 months (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80) (both high-certainty evidence); and no effects of physical activity on diabetic control (after 1 hour: MD ‒0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI ‒1.11 to 1.03; 67 participants; after 2 hours: MD ‒0.44 mmol/L, 95% CI ‒1.43 to 0.55; 81 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no difference between groups in the number of adverse events over six months (odds ratio 6.22, 95% CI 0.72 to 53.40; 2 RCTs, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). For other time points (up to and including six months and during a follow-up period with no active intervention), the effects of physical activity versus control were similar to those reported for the outcomes above. However, only three out of seven studies adding a follow-up period with no active intervention (ranging between one and 12 months) reported on the primary outcomes of changes in exercise capacity and lung function, and one on HRQoL. These data must be interpreted with caution. Altogether, given the heterogeneity of effects across studies, the wide variation in study quality and lack of information on clinically meaningful changes for several outcome measures, we consider the overall certainty of evidence on the effects of physical activity interventions on exercise capacity, lung function and HRQoL to be low to moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity interventions for six months and longer likely improve exercise capacity when compared to no training (moderate-certainty evidence). Current evidence shows little or no effect on lung function and HRQoL (low-certainty evidence). Over recent decades, physical activity has gained increasing interest and is already part of multidisciplinary care offered to most people with CF. Adverse effects of physical activity appear rare and there is no reason to actively discourage regular physical activity and exercise. The benefits of including physical activity in an individual's regular care may be influenced by the type and duration of the activity programme as well as individual preferences for and barriers to physical activity. Further high-quality and sufficiently-sized studies are needed to comprehensively assess the benefits of physical activity and exercise in people with CF, particularly in the new era of CF medicine.
背景:身体活动(包括运动)可能是囊性纤维化(CF)患者常规护理的重要组成部分。这是对先前发表的综述的更新。
目的:评估身体活动干预对 CF 患者运动能力(通过峰值摄氧量评估)、肺功能(通过一秒用力呼气量评估)、健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)和其他重要的患者相关结局的影响。
检索方法:我们检索了 Cochrane 囊性纤维化和遗传疾病组试验注册库,其中包括通过全面的电子数据库搜索以及相关期刊的手工搜索和会议论文集的摘要中确定的参考文献。最近的一次检索是在 2022 年 3 月 3 日。我们还检索了两个正在进行的试验登记处:clinicaltrials.gov,最近一次检索是在 2022 年 3 月 4 日;以及世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP),最近一次检索是在 2022 年 3 月 16 日。
选择标准:我们纳入了所有比较任何类型的身体活动干预与常规护理(无身体活动干预)的随机对照试验(RCT)和准随机对照试验,干预时间至少为两周,且纳入对象均为 CF 患者。
数据收集和分析:两名综述作者独立选择纳入的 RCT,评估方法学质量并提取数据。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性。
主要结果:我们纳入了 24 项平行 RCT(875 名参与者)。研究的参与者数量从 9 到 117 人不等,疾病严重程度差异很大。研究的年龄构成也各不相同:两项研究的所有参与者均为成年人;13 项研究的参与者为 18 岁及以下;一项研究的参与者为 15 岁及以上;一项研究的参与者为 12 岁及以上;七项研究包括所有年龄范围。14 项研究中,主动训练方案持续长达 6 个月,而其余 10 项研究的持续时间超过 6 个月。24 项纳入研究中,有 7 项实施了随访期(当监督取消,但仍允许参与者继续运动),持续时间为 1 至 12 个月。研究采用了不同程度的监督:12 项研究中,训练有监督;11 项研究中,部分监督;一项研究中,训练无监督。纳入研究的质量差异很大。本 Cochrane 综述表明,在 CF 患者中进行持续 6 个月以上的积极训练方案,与无身体活动(常规护理)相比,身体活动可能对运动能力有积极影响(平均差异(MD)1.60,95%置信区间(CI)0.16 至 3.05;6 项 RCT,348 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。运动能力改善的幅度被解释为较小,尽管研究结果存在异质性。身体活动干预可能对肺功能(一秒用力呼气量占预计值的百分比)没有影响(MD 2.41,95%置信区间(CI)-0.49 至 5.31;6 项 RCT,367 名参与者),健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)身体功能(MD 2.19,95%置信区间(CI)-3.42 至 7.80;4 项 RCT,247 名参与者)和 HRQoL 呼吸域(MD -0.05,95%置信区间(CI)-3.61 至 3.51;4 项 RCT,251 名参与者)无影响,随访时间为 6 个月及以上(低确定性证据)。一项研究(117 名参与者)报告称,在 6 个月时,身体活动组和对照组之间在发生肺部恶化的参与者数量(发生率比 1.28,95%置信区间(CI)0.85 至 1.94)或在 12 个月内首次恶化的时间(风险比 1.34,95%置信区间(CI)0.65 至 2.80)方面没有差异(均为高确定性证据);身体活动对糖尿病控制也没有影响(1 小时后:MD -0.04mmol/L,95%置信区间(CI)-1.11 至 1.03;67 名参与者;2 小时后:MD -0.44mmol/L,95%置信区间(CI)-1.43 至 0.55;81 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。我们发现,在 6 个月时,两组之间的不良事件数量没有差异(比值比 6.22,95%置信区间(CI)0.72 至 53.40;2 项 RCT,156 名参与者;低确定性证据)。对于其他时间点(包括 6 个月及以内和无主动干预的随访期),身体活动与对照组的效果与上述主要结局的效果相似。然而,只有 7 项添加无主动干预随访期(持续时间为 1 至 12 个月)的研究中的 3 项报告了运动能力和肺功能的变化以及一项报告了 HRQoL。这些数据必须谨慎解释。总的来说,由于研究之间的效应存在异质性,研究质量差异很大,并且对几个结局测量的有临床意义的变化缺乏信息,我们认为身体活动干预对运动能力、肺功能和 HRQoL 的影响的总体证据确定性为低至中等。
作者结论:6 个月及以上的身体活动干预可能比不训练(中等确定性证据)更能改善运动能力。目前的证据表明,对肺功能和 HRQoL 的影响很小或没有(低确定性证据)。近几十年来,身体活动越来越受到重视,并且已经成为大多数 CF 患者多学科护理的一部分。身体活动的不良反应似乎很少见,没有理由积极劝阻定期进行身体活动和运动。纳入身体活动作为个人常规护理的一部分的好处可能受到活动方案的类型和持续时间以及个人对身体活动的偏好和障碍的影响。还需要高质量和足够规模的研究来全面评估 CF 患者身体活动和运动的益处,特别是在 CF 医学的新时代。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-8-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-9-27
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-8-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-11-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-8-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-7-20
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-12-15
Children (Basel). 2025-6-23
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025-7-9
Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2021-6