scholarly journals The risks and benefits of yoga for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1847-1862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Cramer ◽  
Heidemarie Haller ◽  
Petra Klose ◽  
Lesley Ward ◽  
Vincent CH Chung ◽  
...  

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of yoga interventions on disease symptoms, quality of life and function in patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Data sources: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through 6 June 2019. Review methods: Randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of yoga on quality of life, dyspnea, exercise capacity, and pulmonary function (FEV1) in patients with COPD were included. Safety was defined as secondary outcome. Mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Results: Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total of 586 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed evidence for effects of yoga compared to no treatment on quality of life on the COPD Assessment Test (MD = 3.81; 95% CI = 0.97 to 6.65; P = 0.009, I2 = 70%), exercise capacity assessed by the 6-minute walk test (MD = 25.53 m; 95% CI = 12.16 m to 38.90 m; P = 0.001, I2 = 0%), and pulmonary function assessed by FEV1 predicted (MD  = 3.95%; 95% CI = 2.74% to 5.17%; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). Only the effects on exercise capacity and pulmonary function were robust against methodological bias. Effects were only present in breathing-focused yoga interventions but not in interventions including yoga postures. Adverse events were reported infrequently. Conclusion: This meta-analysis found robust effects of yoga on exercise capacity and pulmonary function in patients with COPD. Yoga, specifically yoga breathing techniques, can be an effective adjunct intervention for patients with COPD. Yoga’s safety needs to be assessed in more depth in future studies.

2021 ◽  
pp. 204589402110078
Author(s):  
Lu Yan ◽  
Wence Shi ◽  
Zhi-hong Liu ◽  
Qin Luo ◽  
Zhihui Zhao ◽  
...  

Background: Several studies have suggested that exercise capacity and quality of life are reduced in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), and exercise-based rehabilitation can improve exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with PH. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of exercise-based rehabilitation in patients with PH through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to November 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise capacity and quality of life between patients undergoing exercise-based rehabilitation and those undergoing non-exercise training were included. Data were extracted separately and independently by two investigators, and discrepancies were arbitrated by the third investigator. We used the random-effects model to analyze the results, the GRADE to assess the risk of bias in the included studies, and I ² statistic to estimate the degree of heterogeneity. Results: Nine RCTs are included, however, only seven RCTs were able to extract data. Including inpatients and outpatients, the total number of participants was 234, most of whom were diagnosed as pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH). The study duration ranged from 3 to15 weeks. The mean six-minute walk distance after exercise training was 51.94 metres higher than control (27.65 to 76.23 metres, n=234, 7 RCTs, low quality evidence), the mean peak oxygen uptake  was 2.96 ml/kg/minute higher (2.49 to 3.43 ml/kg/minute, n=179, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence) than in the control group . Concluded: Our finding suggest that an exercise-based training program positively influences exercise capacity in patients with PH.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. e19-e28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nanna Juel-Berg ◽  
Peter Darling ◽  
Julie Bolvig ◽  
Majken H. Foss-Skiftesvik ◽  
Susanne Halken ◽  
...  

Background Intranasal corticosteroids (INS) (corticosteroid nasal sprays) and oral antihistamines (OA) are two of the most common treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). To our knowledge, there are no systematic reviews on this topic including trials published after 2007. Objective To compare INS with nonsedating OAs as treatments for AR. Methods The systematic review and meta-analysis were based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation principles and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome approach. Primary literature was searched up to January 22, 2015. Criteria for eligibility were randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and/or adverse effects of INS and OA in patients with AR. Continuous outcome data were analyzed by using standardized mean differences (SMD) for multiple outcome measures, and mean differences in the case of a single study or outcome. Pooled estimates of effects, 95% confidence interval (CI), were calculated by using random-effects models. Results The meta-analysis included five randomized controlled trials with a total of 990 patients. INS were superior to OAs in improving total nasal symptoms score (SMD -0.70 [95% CI, -0.93 to -0.477]) and in relieving the following: nasal obstruction (SMD -0.56 [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.29]), rhinorrhea (SMD -0.47 [95% CI, -1.00 to 0.05]), nasal itching (SMD -0.42 [95% CI, -0.65 to -0.18]), sneezing (SMD -0.52 [95% CI, -0.73 to -0.32]), and quality of life mean difference -0.90 [95% CI, -1.18 to -0.62]). There was no difference in relief of ocular symptoms (SMD -0.08 [95% CI, -0.23 to 0.08]). In addition, four randomized controlled trials were included in a narrative analysis. The results in the narrative analysis were comparable with those found in the meta-analysis. Conclusion INS were superior to OAs in improving nasal symptoms and quality of life in patients with AR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document