Respiratory muscle training for multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system, affecting approximately 2.5 million people worldwide. People with MS may experience limitations in muscular strength and endurance - including the respiratory muscles, affecting functional performance and exercise capacity. Respiratory muscle weakness can also lead to diminished performance on coughing, which may result in (aspiration) pneumonia or even acute ventilatory failure, complications that frequently cause death in MS. Training of the respiratory muscles might improve respiratory function and cough efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of respiratory muscle training versus any other type of training or no training for respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function and clinical outcomes in people with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group (3 February 2017), which contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS and the trial registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two authors independently screened records yielded by the search, handsearched reference lists of review articles and primary studies, checked trial registers for protocols, and contacted experts in the field to identify further published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of respiratory muscle training versus any control in people with MS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted study characteristics and study data from included RCTs, and two other reviewers independently cross-checked all extracted data. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. When at least two RCTs provided data for the same type of outcome, we performed meta-analyses. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs, comprising 195 participants with MS. Two RCTs investigated inspiratory muscle training with a threshold device; three RCTs, expiratory muscle training with a threshold device; and one RCT, regular breathing exercises. Eighteen participants (˜ 10%) dropped out; trials reported no serious adverse events.We pooled and analyzed data of 5 trials (N=137) for both inspiratory and expiratory muscle training, using a fixed-effect model for all but one outcome. Compared to no active control, meta-analysis showed that inspiratory muscle training resulted in no significant difference in maximal inspiratory pressure (mean difference (MD) 6.50 cmH2O, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.39 to 20.38, P = 0.36, I2 = 0%) or maximal expiratory pressure (MD -8.22 cmH2O, 95% CI -26.20 to 9.77, P = 0.37, I2 = 0%), but there was a significant benefit on the predicted maximal inspiratory pressure (MD 20.92 cmH2O, 95% CI 6.03 to 35.81, P = 0.006, I2 = 18%). Meta-analysis with a random-effects model failed to show a significant difference in predicted maximal expiratory pressure (MD 5.86 cmH2O, 95% CI -10.63 to 22.35, P = 0.49, I2 = 55%). These studies did not report outcomes for health-related quality of life.Three RCTS compared expiratory muscle training versus no active control or sham training. Under a fixed-effect model, meta-analysis failed to show a significant difference between groups with regard to maximal expiratory pressure (MD 8.33 cmH2O, 95% CI -0.93 to 17.59, P = 0.18, I2 = 42%) or maximal inspiratory pressure (MD 3.54 cmH2O, 95% CI -5.04 to 12.12, P = 0.42, I2 = 41%). One trial assessed quality of life, finding no differences between groups.For all predetermined secondary outcomes, such as forced expiratory volume, forced vital capacity and peak flow pooling was not possible. However, two trials on inspiratory muscle training assessed fatigue using the Fatigue Severity Scale (range of scores 0-56 ), finding no difference between groups (MD, -0.28 points, 95% CI-0.95 to 0.39, P = 0.42, I2 = 0%). Due to the low number of studies included, we could not perform cumulative meta-analysis or subgroup analyses. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for adverse events, no serious adverse were mentioned in any of the included trials.The quality of evidence was low for all outcomes because of limitations in design and implementation as well as imprecision of results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides low-quality evidence that resistive inspiratory muscle training with a resistive threshold device is moderately effective postintervention for improving predicted maximal inspiratory pressure in people with mild to moderate MS, whereas expiratory muscle training showed no significant effects. The sustainability of the favourable effect of inspiratory muscle training is unclear, as is the impact of the observed effects on quality of life.

Exercise therapy for fatigue in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system affecting an estimated 1.3 million people worldwide. It is characterised by a variety of disabling symptoms of which excessive fatigue is the most frequent. Fatigue is often reported as the most invalidating symptom in people with MS. Various mechanisms directly and indirectly related to the disease and physical inactivity have been proposed to contribute to the degree of fatigue. Exercise therapy can induce physiological and psychological changes that may counter these mechanisms and reduce fatigue in MS. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of exercise therapy compared to a no-exercise control condition or another intervention on fatigue, measured with self-reported questionnaires, of people with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Trials Specialised Register, which, among other sources, contains trials from: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (from 1974 to October 2014), CINAHL (from 1981 to October 2014), LILACS (from 1982 to October 2014), PEDro (from 1999 to October 2014), and Clinical trials registries (October 2014). Two review authors independently screened the reference lists of identified trials and related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy or other interventions for adults with MS that included subjective fatigue as an outcome. In these trials, fatigue should have been measured using questionnaires that primarily assessed fatigue or sub-scales of questionnaires that measured fatigue or sub-scales of questionnaires not primarily designed for the assessment of fatigue but explicitly used as such. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the articles, extracted data, and determined methodological quality of the included trials. Methodological quality was determined by means of the Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool and the PEDro scale. The combined body of evidence was summarised using the GRADE approach. The results were aggregated using meta-analysis for those trials that provided sufficient data to do so. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five trials, studying 69 exercise interventions, were eligible for this review, including 2250 people with MS. The prescribed exercise interventions were categorised as endurance training (23 interventions), muscle power training (nine interventions), task-oriented training (five interventions), mixed training (15 interventions), or 'other' (e.g. yoga; 17 interventions). Thirty-six included trials (1603 participants) provided sufficient data on the outcome of fatigue for meta-analysis. In general, exercise interventions were studied in mostly participants with the relapsing-remitting MS phenotype, and with an Expanded Disability Status Scale less than 6.0. Based on 26 trials that used a non-exercise control, we found a significant effect on fatigue in favour of exercise therapy (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.73 to -0.33; P value < 0.01). However, there was significant heterogeneity between trials (I(2) > 58%). The mean methodological quality, as well as the combined body of evidence, was moderate. When considering the different types of exercise therapy, we found a significant effect on fatigue in favour of exercise therapy compared to no exercise for endurance training (SMDfixed effect -0.43, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.17; P value < 0.01), mixed training (SMDrandom effect -0.73, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.23; P value < 0.01), and 'other' training (SMDfixed effect -0.54, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.29; P value < 0.01). Across all studies, one fall was reported. Given the number of MS relapses reported for the exercise condition (N = 25) and non-exercise control condition (N = 26), exercise does not seem to be associated with a significant risk of a MS relapse. However, in general, MS relapses were defined and reported poorly. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy can be prescribed in people with MS without harm. Exercise therapy, and particularly endurance, mixed, or 'other' training, may reduce self reported fatigue. However, there are still some important methodological issues to overcome. Unfortunately, most trials did not explicitly include people who experienced fatigue, did not target the therapy on fatigue specifically, and did not use a validated measure of fatigue as the primary measurement of outcome.