Respiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis

Effects of respiratory muscular training in post-covid-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Post-Covid-19 syndrome is defined as non-self-sustaining signs and/or symptoms lasting more than 12 weeks, occurring during or after a Covid-19 infection. The primary outcome was the analysis of the respiratory muscle training (RMT) result in respiratory muscle strength, (maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) e maximum expiratory pressure (MEP)); and the secondary results were the analysis of lung function, dyspnea, quality of life (QoL), fatigue and functional performance.

METHODS

The PICO description for this research was: P: patients diagnosed with post-Covid-19; I: RMT; C: Sham or simulated inspiratory or expiratory muscle training and usual care; O: MIP, MEP, Lung Function, level of dyspnea, QoL and functional performance. On January 15, 2024, the following databases were consulted: PubMed, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, PEDro and EMBASE. Randomized clinical trials were included without restrictions on year of publication or language. The data selection and extraction steps were carried out by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

The search in the databases resulted in a total of 14,216 studies, and after the eligibility process, 7 studies were included with a sample of 527 patients. The MIP results suffered a statistically significant increase, that is, the RMT was favorable to improve the MIP (MD = 29.55cmH2O IC 95%: 7.56cmH2O to 51.54cmH2O, p = 0,00001). For the MEP outcome, the results were statistically significant in favor of RMT (MD = 10.93cmH2O CI 95%: 3.65cmH2O to 18.21cmH2O, p = 0.00001). We also noticed a significant improvement for the group that received the RMT in the distance covered in the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) MD = 40.70 m CI 95%: 18.23 m to 65.17 m%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We noticed that RMT is being used in patients with respiratory diseases, including post-Covid-19. Our systematic review observed that this training provides an increase in inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength, a reduction in dyspnea levels, and an increase in the distance covered in the 6MWT and improved QoL in post-covid patients after intervention.

The Effect of Respiratory Muscle Training on Swallowing Function in Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The improvement of swallowing function after stroke is a significant challenge faced by patients and health care professionals. However, the current evidence synthesis of the effects of respiratory muscle training (RMT) on swallowing function is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of RMT on swallowing recovery in patients undergoing stroke.

METHODS

The CKNI, WanFang Data, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies evaluating RMT interventions' effect on swallowing outcomes. Risks of bias were evaluated using the approach recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration tool and a summary of findings table was generated using the GRADE approach. Outcomes were synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

RMT interventions reduced the risk of aspiration (SMD = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.53-1.84), the recovery process of water swallowing function (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.42), and the activity of the swallowing muscles (SMD = 2.91; 95% CI, 2.22-3.61). However, there was no significant effect of RMT on the functional level of oral intake (SMD = 0.70; 95% CI, -0.03 to 1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

RMT can be regarded as an innovative, auxiliary means in the near future to better manage and improve swallowing function, given its improving effect on work outcomes in this review.

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in commercial respiratory interventions: an evidence-based guide for health and exercise professionals

Respiratory function has become a global health priority. Not only is chronic respiratory disease a leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality, but the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened attention on respiratory health and the means of enhancing it. Subsequently, and inevitably, the respiratory system has become a target of the multi-trillion-dollar health and wellness industry. Numerous commercial, respiratory-related interventions are now coupled to therapeutic and/or ergogenic claims that vary in their plausibility: from the reasonable to the absurd. Moreover, legitimate and illegitimate claims are often conflated in a wellness space that lacks regulation. The abundance of interventions, the range of potential therapeutic targets in the respiratory system, and the wealth of research that varies in quality, all confound the ability for health and exercise professionals to make informed risk-to-benefit assessments with their patients and clients. This review focuses on numerous commercial interventions that purport to improve respiratory health, including nasal dilators, nasal breathing, and systematized breathing interventions (such as pursed-lips breathing), respiratory muscle training, canned oxygen, nutritional supplements, and inhaled L-menthol. For each intervention we describe the premise, examine the plausibility, and systematically contrast commercial claims against the published literature. The overarching aim is to assist health and exercise professionals to distinguish science from pseudoscience and make pragmatic and safe risk-to-benefit decisions.

Exercise versus airway clearance techniques for people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

There are many accepted airway clearance techniques (ACTs) for managing the respiratory health of people with cystic fibrosis (CF); none of which demonstrate superiority. Other Cochrane Reviews have reported short-term effects related to mucus transport, but no evidence supporting long-term benefits. Exercise is an alternative ACT thought to produce shearing forces within the lung parenchyma, which enhances mucociliary clearance and the removal of viscous secretions. Recent evidence suggests that some people with CF are using exercise as a substitute for traditional ACTs, yet there is no agreed recommendation for this. Additionally, one of the top 10 research questions identified by people with CF is whether exercise can replace other ACTs. Systematically reviewing the evidence for exercise as a safe and effective ACT will help people with CF decide whether to incorporate this strategy into their treatment plans and potentially reduce their treatment burden. The timing of this review is especially pertinent given the shifting landscape of CF management with the advent of highly-effective small molecule therapies, which are changing the way people with CF are cared for.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of exercise to other ACTs for improving respiratory function and other clinical outcomes in people with CF and to assess the potential adverse effects associated with this ACT.

SEARCH METHODS

On 28 February 2022, we searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We searched online clinical trial registries on 15 February 2022. We emailed authors of studies awaiting classification or potentially eligible abstracts for additional information on 1 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled studies (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing exercise to another ACT in people with CF for at least two treatment sessions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for the included studies. They assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Review authors contacted investigators for further relevant information regarding their publications.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs. The 86 participants had a wide range of disease severity (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 54% to 95%) and were 7 to 41 years old. Two RCTs were cross-over and two were parallel in design. Participants in one RCT were hospitalised with an acute respiratory exacerbation, whilst the participants in three RCTs were clinically stable. All four RCTs compared exercise either alone or in combination with another ACT, but these were too diverse to allow us to combine results. The certainty of the evidence was very low; we downgraded it due to low participant numbers and high or unclear risks of bias across all domains. Exercise versus active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT) One cross-over trial (18 participants) compared exercise alone to ACBT. There was no change from baseline in our primary outcome FEV1, although it increased in the exercise group before returning to baseline after 30 minutes; we are unsure if exercise affected FEV1 as the evidence is very low-certainty. Similar results were seen for other measures of lung function. No adverse events occurred during the exercise sessions (very low-certainty evidence). We are unsure if ACBT was perceived to be more effective or was the preferred ACT (very low-certainty evidence). 24-hour sputum volume was less in the exercise group than with ACBT (secondary outcome). Exercise capacity, quality of life, adherence, hospitalisations and need for additional antibiotics were not reported. Exercise plus postural drainage and percussion (PD&P) versus PD&P only Two trials (55 participants) compared exercise and PD&P to PD&P alone. At two weeks, one trial narratively reported a greater increase in FEV1 % predicted with PD&P alone. At six months, the other trial reported a greater increase with exercise combined with PD&P, but did not provide data for the PD&P group. We are uncertain whether exercise with PD&P improves FEV1 as the certainty of evidence is very low. Other measures of lung function did not show clear evidence of effect. One trial reported no difference in exercise capacity (maximal work rate) after two weeks. No adverse events were reported (1 trial, 17 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adherence was high, with all PD&P sessions and 96% of exercise sessions completed (1 trial, 17 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference between groups in 24-hour sputum volume or in the mean duration of hospitalisation, although the six-month trial reported fewer hospitalisations due to exacerbations in the exercise and PD&P group. Quality of life, ACT preference and need for antibiotics were not reported. Exercise versus underwater positive expiratory pressure (uPEP) One trial (13 participants) compared exercise to uPEP (also known as bubble PEP). No adverse events were recorded in either group (very low-certainty evidence). Trial investigators reported that participants perceived exercise as more fatiguing but also more enjoyable than bubble PEP (very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences found in the total weight of sputum collected during treatment sessions. The trial did not report the primary outcomes (FEV1, quality of life, exercise capacity) or the secondary outcomes (other measures of lung function, adherence, need for antibiotics or hospitalisations).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As one of the top 10 research questions identified by clinicians and people with CF, it is important to systematically review the literature regarding whether or not exercise is an acceptable and effective ACT, and whether it can replace traditional methods. We identified an insufficient number of trials to conclude whether or not exercise is a suitable alternative ACT, and the diverse design of included trials did not allow for meta-analysis of results. The evidence is very low-certainty, so we are uncertain about the effectiveness of exercise as an ACT. Longer studies examining outcomes that are important to people with CF are required to answer this question.

Respiratory Muscle Strength: New Technology for Easy Assessment

Respiratory muscle strength (RMS) is associated with good functionality of the respiratory system. For the general population, it refers to the quality of life, and for the athletes, is related to greater performance. In this study, a comparison was made between two different portable devices, MicroRPM (CareFusion, Kent, United Kingdom) and AirOFit PRO™ (AirOFit, Copenhagen, Denmark), assessing the maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximum expiratory pressure (MEP). Twenty-one male professional athletes were evaluated on a voluntary basis and randomly used the devices for RMS assessment, while all athletes underwent Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), pulmonary function tests and ergospirometry. All measurements of MIP and MEP were made with the same methodology and all participants after the efforts answered the question "easy-operation device-information" and dyspnea and/or respiratory fatigue during trials with the CR10 scale. Results showed statistical differences between VO_2max and maximal respiratory strength both for AirOFit PRO™ (r=0.526, p=0.014) and in MicroPRM (r=0.567, p=0.007). The PSQI score showed statistical differences in % of predicted values in MEP with the AirOFit PRO™ device (r=0.478, p=0.028). Athletes reported that the AirOFit PRO™ device is easier in operation as a device and provides more information during trial comparisons to MicroPRM (p=0.001). Athletes reported that the AirOFit PRO™ device is easier in operation as a device and provides more information during the trial compared to MicroPRM. The results did not show differences in RMS (MIP and MEP) between devices (p>0.05). For the people who want to train with tele-exercise and/or tele-rehabilitation, the AirOFit PRO™ device would be an important and safe training solution.