-
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2022Increasing numbers of individuals suffer from post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), which manifests with persistent symptoms, the most prevalent being dyspnea, fatigue,... (Review)
Review
Increasing numbers of individuals suffer from post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), which manifests with persistent symptoms, the most prevalent being dyspnea, fatigue, and musculoskeletal, cognitive, and/or mental health impairments. This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for individuals with PACS. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINHAL, Scopus, Prospero, and PEDro databases and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2021. We screened 516 citations for eligibility, i.e., trials that included individuals with PACS exposed to exercise-based rehabilitation interventions. Five RCTs were included, accounting for 512 participants (aged 49.2-69.4 years, 65% males). Based on the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2.0), two RCTs had "low risk of bias", and three were in the "some concerns" category. Three RCTs compared experimental rehabilitation interventions with no or minimal rehabilitation, while two compared two active rehabilitation interventions. Rehabilitation seemed to improve dyspnea, anxiety, and kinesiophobia. Results on pulmonary function were inconsistent, while improvements were detected in muscle strength, walking capacity, sit-to-stand performance, and quality of life. Pending further studies based on qualitatively sound designs, these first findings seem to advocate for rehabilitation interventions to lessen disability due to PACS.
Topics: COVID-19; Dyspnea; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Quality of Life; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 35564579
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095185 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... May 2022Post-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Post-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the prevalence of persistent symptoms and signs at least 12 weeks after acute COVID-19 at different follow-up periods.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were conducted up to October 2021 in Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS
Articles in English that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and included at least 50 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks after acute illness.
METHODS
Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to produce a pooled prevalence for each symptom at four different follow-up time intervals. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and was explored via meta-regression, considering several a priori study-level variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for prevalence studies and comparative studies, respectively.
RESULTS
After screening 3209 studies, a total of 63 studies were eligible, with a total COVID-19 population of 257 348. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and difficulty concentrating (32%, 25%, 24%, and 22%, respectively, at 3- to <6-month follow-up); effort intolerance, fatigue, sleep disorder, and dyspnea (45%, 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, at 6- to <9-month follow-up); fatigue (37%) and dyspnea (21%) at 9 to <12 months; and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and myalgia (41%, 31%, 30%, and 22%, respectively, at >12-month follow-up). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity for all reported symptom prevalences. Meta-regressions identified statistically significant effect modifiers: world region, male sex, diabetes mellitus, disease severity, and overall study quality score. Five of six studies including a comparator group consisting of COVID-19-negative cases observed significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and several long-term symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found that a large proportion of patients experience post-acute COVID-19 syndrome 3 to 12 months after recovery from the acute phase of COVID-19. However, available studies of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome are highly heterogeneous. Future studies need to have appropriate comparator groups, standardized symptom definitions and measurements, and longer follow-up.
Topics: COVID-19; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Sleep Wake Disorders; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 35124265
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.01.014 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Apr 2021Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed,... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies.
METHODS
Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed.
RESULTS
Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort.
CONCLUSION
Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief.
Topics: Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Palliative Care; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Terminal Care
PubMed: 32961218
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.09.022 -
International Journal of Clinical... Oct 2021To identify, systematically evaluate and summarise the best available evidence on the frequency of long COVID-19 (post-acute COVID-19 syndrome), its clinical... (Review)
Review
AIMS
To identify, systematically evaluate and summarise the best available evidence on the frequency of long COVID-19 (post-acute COVID-19 syndrome), its clinical manifestations, and the criteria used for diagnosis.
METHODS
Systematic review conducted with a comprehensive search including formal databases, COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 data sources, grey literature, and manual search. We considered for inclusion clinical trials, observational longitudinal comparative and non-comparative studies, cross-sectional, before-and-after, and case series. We assessed the methodological quality by specific tools based on the study designs. We presented the results as a narrative synthesis regarding the frequency and duration of long COVID-19, signs and symptoms, criteria used for diagnosis, and potential risk factors.
RESULTS
We included 25 observational studies with moderate to high methodological quality, considering 5440 participants. The frequency of long COVID-19 ranged from 4.7% to 80%, and the most prevalent signs/symptoms were chest pain (up to 89%), fatigue (up to 65%), dyspnea (up to 61%), and cough and sputum production (up to 59%). Temporal criteria used to define long COVID-19 varied from 3 to 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Potentially associated risk factors were old age, female sex, severe clinical status, a high number of comorbidities, hospital admission, and oxygen supplementation at the acute phase. However, limitations related to study designs added uncertainty to this finding. None of the studies assessed the duration of signs/symptoms.
CONCLUSION
The frequency of long COVID-19 reached up to 80% over the studies included and occurred between 3 and 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Chest pain, fatigue, dyspnea, and cough were the most reported clinical manifestations attributed to the condition. Based on these systematic review findings, there is an urgent need to understand this emerging, complex and challenging medical condition. Proposals for diagnostic criteria and standard terminology are welcome.
Topics: COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dyspnea; Female; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 33977626
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14357 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) aims to improve respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Clinical trials used various training protocols, devices and respiratory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) aims to improve respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Clinical trials used various training protocols, devices and respiratory measurements to check the effectiveness of this intervention. The current guidelines reported a possible advantage of IMT, particularly in people with respiratory muscle weakness. However, it remains unclear to what extent IMT is clinically beneficial, especially when associated with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as a stand-alone intervention and when combined with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 20 October 2021. We also checked reference lists of all primary studies and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IMT in combination with PR versus PR alone and IMT versus control/sham. We included different types of IMT irrespective of the mode of delivery. We excluded trials that used resistive devices without controlling the breathing pattern or a training load of less than 30% of maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax), or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane including assessment of risk of bias with RoB 2. Our primary outcomes were dyspnea, functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 55 RCTs in this review. Both IMT and PR protocols varied significantly across the trials, especially in training duration, loads, devices, number/ frequency of sessions and the PR programs. Only eight trials were at low risk of bias. PR+IMT versus PR We included 22 trials (1446 participants) in this comparison. Based on a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of -1 unit, we did not find an improvement in dyspnea assessed with the Borg scale at submaximal exercise capacity (mean difference (MD) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to 0.79; 2 RCTs, 202 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We also found no improvement in dyspnea assessed with themodified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC) according to an MCID between -0.5 and -1 unit (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.14; 2 RCTs, 204 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pooling evidence for the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) showed an increase of 5.95 meters (95% CI -5.73 to 17.63; 12 RCTs, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and failed to reach the MCID of 26 meters. In subgroup analysis, we divided the RCTs according to the training duration and mean baseline PImax. The test for subgroup differences was not significant. Trials at low risk of bias (n = 3) demonstrated a larger effect estimate than the overall. The summary effect of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) revealed an overall total score below the MCID of 4 units (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.20; 7 RCTs, 908 participants; low-certainty evidence). The summary effect of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) did not show an improvement in the HRQoL (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.80 to 1.06; 2 RCTs, 657 participants; very low-certainty evidence), according to an MCID of -1.6 units. Pooling the RCTs that reported PImax showed an increase of 11.46 cmHO (95% CI 7.42 to 15.50; 17 RCTs, 1329 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but failed to reach the MCID of 17.2 cmHO. In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness. One abstract reported some adverse effects that were considered "minor and self-limited". IMT versus control/sham Thirty-seven RCTs with 1021 participants contributed to our second comparison. There was a trend towards an improvement when Borg was calculated at submaximal exercise capacity (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.51; 6 RCTs, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial was at a low risk of bias. Eight studies (nine arms) used the Baseline Dyspnea Index - Transition Dyspnea Index (BDI-TDI). Based on an MCID of +1 unit, they showed an improvement only with the 'total score' of the TDI (MD 2.98, 95% CI 2.07 to 3.89; 8 RCTs, 238 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find a difference between studies classified as with and without respiratory muscle weakness. Only one trial was at low risk of bias. Four studies reported the mMRC, revealing a possible improvement in dyspnea in the IMT group (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.43; 4 RCTs, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two trials were at low risk of bias. Compared to control/sham, the MD in the 6MWD following IMT was 35.71 (95% CI 25.68 to 45.74; 16 RCTs, 501 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies were at low risk of bias. In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness. Six studies reported theSGRQ total score, showing a larger effect in the IMT group (MD -3.85, 95% CI -8.18 to 0.48; 6 RCTs, 182 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded the MCID of -4 units. Only one study was at low risk of bias. There was an improvement in life quality with CAT (MD -2.97, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.10; 2 RCTs, 86 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial was at low risk of bias. Thirty-two RCTs reported PImax, showing an improvement without reaching the MCID (MD 14.57 cmHO, 95% CI 9.85 to 19.29; 32 RCTs, 916 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness. None of the included RCTs reported adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
IMT may not improve dyspnea, functional exercise capacity and life quality when associated with PR. However, IMT is likely to improve these outcomes when provided alone. For both interventions, a larger effect in participants with respiratory muscle weakness and with longer training durations is still to be confirmed.
Topics: Humans; Dyspnea; Muscles; Physical Therapy Modalities; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Breathing Exercises
PubMed: 36606682
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013778.pub2 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Apr 2023The last systematic review about respiratory muscle training (RMT) in people with asthma was published almost 10 years ago. Since then, several works have been published. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The last systematic review about respiratory muscle training (RMT) in people with asthma was published almost 10 years ago. Since then, several works have been published.
OBJECTIVE
To review the effect of RMT in people with asthma.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of research included up to September 2021 in PubMed/MEDLINE, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies assessing the effect of RMT on respiratory muscle function, rescue medication, asthma-related symptoms, lung function, exercise capacity, healthcare use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse effects in people with asthma. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool and the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was performed whenever possible; otherwise a qualitative approach was followed.
RESULTS
Eleven studies (270 participants) were included, 10 with only adults and were included in the meta-analysis. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) had beneficial effects on maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax: mean difference [MD] 21.95 cmHO [95% confidence interval [CI] 15.05; 28.85]), with no changes in maximal expiratory pressure (MD 14.97 cmHO [95%CI -5.65; 35.59]), lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 sec: MD 0.06 [95%CI -0.14; 0.26] L; force vital capacity: MD 0.39 [95%CI -0.24; 1.02] L) and exercise capacity (standard mean difference [SMD] 1.73 [95%CI -0.61; 4.08]). Subgroup analysis revealed that IMT load >50% PImax and duration >6 weeks were beneficial for exercise capacity. The qualitative analysis suggested that IMT may have benefits on respiratory muscle endurance, rescue medication and exertional dyspnoea, with no adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed a significant increase in PImax after IMT in adults with asthma and reinforced the relevance of the dose-response principle of training. More evidence is needed to clarify the effect of IMT in respiratory muscle endurance, rescue medication, exercise capacity, healthcare use and HRQoL.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020221939; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=221939.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Quality of Life; Breathing Exercises; Asthma; Respiratory Muscles
PubMed: 35843501
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2022.101691 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterised by reduced functional capacity, dyspnoea and exercise-induced hypoxia. Pulmonary rehabilitation is often used to improve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterised by reduced functional capacity, dyspnoea and exercise-induced hypoxia. Pulmonary rehabilitation is often used to improve symptoms, health-related quality of life and functional status in other chronic lung conditions. There is accumulating evidence for comparable effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD. However, further information is needed to clarify the long-term benefit and to strengthen the rationale for pulmonary rehabilitation to be incorporated into standard clinical management of people with ILD. This review updates the results reported in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD has beneficial effects on exercise capacity, symptoms, quality of life and survival compared with no pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD. To assess the safety of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PEDro from inception to April 2020. We searched the reference lists of relevant studies, international clinical trial registries and respiratory conference abstracts to look for qualifying studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which pulmonary rehabilitation was compared with no pulmonary rehabilitation or with other therapy in people with ILD of any origin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request missing data and information regarding adverse effects. We specified a priori subgroup analyses for participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and participants with severe lung disease (low diffusing capacity or desaturation during exercise). There were insufficient data to perform the prespecified subgroup analysis for type of exercise training modality.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we included an additional 12 studies resulting in a total of 21 studies. We included 16 studies in the meta-analysis (356 participants undertook pulmonary rehabilitation and 319 were control participants). The mean age of participants ranged from 36 to 72 years and included people with ILD of varying aetiology, sarcoidosis or IPF (with mean transfer factor of carbon dioxide (TLCO) % predicted ranging from 37% to 63%). Most pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were conducted in an outpatient setting, with a small number conducted in home-based, inpatient or tele-rehabilitation settings. The duration of pulmonary rehabilitation ranged from three to 48 weeks. There was a moderate risk of bias due to the absence of outcome assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analyses and the inadequate reporting of randomisation and allocation procedures in 60% of the studies. Pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves the six-minute walk distance (6MWD) with mean difference (MD) of 40.07 metres, 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.70 to 47.44; 585 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be improvements in peak workload (MD 9.04 watts, 95% CI 6.07 to 12.0; 159 participants; low-certainty evidence), peak oxygen consumption (MD 1.28 mL/kg/minute, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.05; 94 participants; low-certainty evidence) and maximum ventilation (MD 7.21 L/minute, 95% CI 4.10 to 10.32; 94 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of participants with IPF, there were comparable improvements in 6MWD (MD 37.25 metres, 95% CI 26.16 to 48.33; 278 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), peak workload (MD 9.94 watts, 95% CI 6.39 to 13.49; low-certainty evidence), VO (oxygen uptake) peak (MD 1.45 mL/kg/minute, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence) and maximum ventilation (MD 9.80 L/minute, 95% CI 6.06 to 13.53; 62 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on maximum heart rate was uncertain. Pulmonary rehabilitation may reduce dyspnoea in participants with ILD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.14; 348 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in the IPF subgroup (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.09; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves health-related quality of life: there were improvements in all four domains of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for participants with ILD and for the subgroup of people with IPF. The improvement in SGRQ Total score was -9.29 for participants with ILD (95% CI -11.06 to -7.52; 478 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and -7.91 for participants with IPF (95% CI -10.55 to -5.26; 194 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies reported longer-term outcomes, with improvements in exercise capacity, dyspnoea and health-related quality of life still evident six to 12 months following the intervention period (6MWD: MD 32.43, 95% CI 15.58 to 49.28; 297 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; dyspnoea: MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.10; 335 participants; SGRQ Total score: MD -4.93, 95% CI -7.81 to -2.06; 240 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of participants with IPF, there were improvements at six to 12 months following the intervention for dyspnoea and SGRQ Impact score. The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on survival at long-term follow-up is uncertain. There were insufficient data to allow examination of the impact of disease severity or exercise training modality. Ten studies provided information on adverse events; however, there were no adverse events reported during rehabilitation. Four studies reported the death of one pulmonary rehabilitation participant; however, all four studies indicated this death was unrelated to the intervention received.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pulmonary rehabilitation can be performed safely in people with ILD. Pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life in the short term, with benefits also probable in IPF. Improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life were sustained longer term. Dyspnoea and quality of life may be sustained in people with IPF. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate, due to inadequate reporting of methods, the lack of outcome assessment blinding and heterogeneity in some results. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, and to investigate ways to promote longer-lasting improvements, particularly for people with IPF.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Dyspnea; Exercise; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Middle Aged; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34559419
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006322.pub4 -
Advances in Therapy Sep 2022Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.
METHODS
This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).
RESULTS
The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).
CONCLUSION
The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Androstadienes; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide, Formoterol Fumarate Drug Combination; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Fluticasone; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines
PubMed: 35849317
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02231-0 -
Revista Medica Del Instituto Mexicano... Feb 2022Patients with SARS-CoV-2 present signs and symptoms that primarily involve the respiratory system. The sequelae result in impaired quality of life, pneumonia, dyspnea,...
BACKGROUND
Patients with SARS-CoV-2 present signs and symptoms that primarily involve the respiratory system. The sequelae result in impaired quality of life, pneumonia, dyspnea, fatigue, and joint pain.
OBJECTIVE
To sustain with scientific evidence the importance of respiratory physiotherapy and its effects on post-acute COVID-19 adult patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ScienceDirect). The searching period was carried out in February 2021 with a total of one 1229 potential studies. Finally, 5 studies that met the eligibility criteria were included: two clinical trials, two case reports and one cross-sectional study. The methodological quality of the articles was evaluated.
RESULTS
Respiratory muscle training, targeted breathing, and strength training provide significant data of improvement of functional performance. Evidence shows positive effects of respiratory physiotherapy in post-acute COVID-19 adult patients, since it increases resistance to exercise, it decreases fatigue, reduces dyspnea, improves functionality and quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS
More future studies, such as randomized controlled trials, studies including lower age range groups, and individualized approaches, need to be developed.
Topics: Adult; COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35271227
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Surgical Oncology May 2022Esophageal and gastric cancer surgery are associated with considerable morbidity, specifically postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), potentially accentuated by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Esophageal and gastric cancer surgery are associated with considerable morbidity, specifically postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), potentially accentuated by underlying challenges with malnutrition and cachexia affecting respiratory muscle mass. Physiotherapy regimens aim to increase the respiratory muscle strength and may prevent postoperative morbidity.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of physiotherapy regimens in patients treated with esophagectomy or gastrectomy.
METHODS
An electronic database search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Pedro databases. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of physiotherapy on the functional capacity, incidence of PPCs and postoperative morbidity, in-hospital mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven cohort studies assessing prehabilitation totaling 960 patients, and five RCTs and five cohort studies assessing peri- or postoperative physiotherapy with 703 total patients, were included. Prehabilitation resulted in a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia and morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ II). No difference was observed in functional exercise capacity and in-hospital mortality following prehabilitation. Meanwhile, peri- or postoperative rehabilitation resulted in a lower incidence of pneumonia, shorter LOS, and better HRQoL scores for dyspnea and physical functioning, while no differences were found for the QoL summary score, global health status, fatigue, and pain scores.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that implementing an exercise intervention may be beneficial in both the preoperative and peri- or postoperative periods. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanism through which exercise interventions improve clinical outcomes and which patient subgroup will gain the maximal benefit.
Topics: Esophagectomy; Gastrectomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Physical Therapy Modalities; Pneumonia; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 34961901
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-11122-7