Exercise for cancer cachexia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterised by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass, with or without a loss of fat mass, leading to progressive functional impairment. Physical exercise may attenuate cancer cachexia and its impact on patient function. This is the first update of an original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2014, which found no studies to include. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of exercise, compared with usual care, no treatment or active control, for cancer cachexia in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to March 2020. We searched for ongoing studies in trial registries, checked reference lists and contacted experts to seek relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials in adults with cancer cachexia, that compared a programme of exercise alone or in combination with another intervention, with usual care, no treatment or an active control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for relevance and extracted data on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes from potentially relevant articles. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was lean body mass and secondary outcomes were adherence to exercise programme, adverse events, muscle strength and endurance, exercise capacity, fatigue and health-related quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and included two Summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included four new studies in this update which overall randomised 178 adults with a mean age of 58 (standard deviation (SD) 8.2) years. Study sample size ranged from 20 to 60 participants and in three studies the proportion of men ranged from 52% to 82% (the fourth study was only available in abstract form). Three studies were from Europe: one in the UK and Norway; one in Belgium and one in Germany. The remaining study was in Canada. The types of primary cancer were head and neck (two studies), lung and pancreas (one study), and mixed (one study). We found two comparisons: exercise alone (strength-based exercise) compared to usual care (one study; 20 participants); and exercise (strength-based exercise/endurance exercise) as a component of a multimodal intervention (pharmacological, nutritional or educational (or a combination) interventions) compared with usual care (three studies, 158 participants). Studies had unclear and high risk of bias for most domains. Exercise plus usual care compared with usual care We found one study (20 participants). There was no clear evidence of a difference for lean body mass (8 weeks: MD 6.40 kg, 95% CI -2.30 to 15.10; very low-certainty evidence). For our secondary outcomes, all participants adhered to the exercise programme and no participant reported any adverse event during the study. There were no data for muscle strength and endurance, or maximal and submaximal exercise capacity. There was no clear evidence of a difference for either fatigue (4 to 20 scale, lower score was better) (8 weeks: MD -0.10, 95% CI -4.00 to 3.80; very low-certainty evidence) or health-related quality of life (0 to 104 scale, higher score was better) (8 weeks: MD 4.90, 95% CI -15.10 to 24.90; very low-certainty evidence). Multimodal intervention (exercise plus other interventions) plus usual care compared with usual care We found three studies but outcome data were only available for two studies. There was no clear evidence of a difference for lean body mass (6 weeks: MD 7.89 kg, 95% CI -9.57 to 25.35; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks: MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.00 to 4.00; one study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For our secondary outcomes, there were no data reported on adherence to the exercise programme, endurance, or maximal exercise capacity. In one study (44 participants) there was no clear evidence of a difference for adverse events (patient episode report) (6 weeks: risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.07; very low-certainty evidence). Another study assessed adverse events but reported no data and the third study did not assess this outcome. There was no clear evidence of a difference in muscle strength (6 weeks: MD 3.80 kg, 95% CI -2.87 to 10.47; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks MD -5.00 kg, 95% CI -14.00 to 4.00; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence), submaximal exercise capacity (6 weeks: MD -16.10 m walked, 95% CI -76.53 to 44.33; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks: MD -62.60 m walked, 95% CI -145.87 to 20.67; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence), fatigue (0 to 10 scale, lower score better) (6 weeks: MD 0.12, 95% CI -1.00 to 1.24; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or health-related quality of life (0 to 104 scale, higher score better) (12 weeks: MD -2.20, 95% CI -13.99 to 9.59; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The previous review identified no studies. For this update, our conclusions have changed with the inclusion of four studies. However, we are uncertain of the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of exercise for adults with cancer cachexia. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are still required to test exercise alone or as part of a multimodal intervention to improve people's well-being throughout all phases of cancer care. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. We have very little confidence in the results and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from these. The findings of at least three more studies (one awaiting classification and two ongoing) are expected in the next review update.

Physical activity for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) represents one of the most common clinical complaints in men. Physical activity might represent a viable first-line intervention for treating LUTS/BPO. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical activity for lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO). SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP); checked the reference lists of retrieved articles; and handsearched abstract proceedings of conferences with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status from database inception to 6 November 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published and unpublished randomised controlled and controlled clinical trials that included men diagnosed with LUTS/BPO. We excluded studies in which medical history suggested non-BPO causes of LUTS or prior invasive therapies to physical activity or that used electrical stimulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We assessed primary outcomes (symptom score for LUTS; response rate, defined as 20% improvement in symptom score; withdrawal due to adverse events) and secondary outcomes (change of medication use; need for an invasive procedure; postvoid residual urine). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies that randomised 652 men over 40 years old with moderate or severe LUTS. The four different comparisons were as follows:Physical activity versus watchful waitingTwo RCTs randomised 119 participants. The interventions included tai chi and pelvic floor exercise. The evidence was overall of very low quality, and we are uncertain about the effects of physical activity on symptom score for LUTS (mean difference (MD) -8.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.2 to -3.1); response rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.80, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.02; 286 more men per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 1079 more); and withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.69; 0 fewer men per 1000, 95% CI 205 fewer to 345 more).Physical activity as part of self-management programme versus watchful waitingTwo RCTs randomised 362 participants. Pelvic floor exercise was one of multiple intervention components. The evidence was of very low quality, and we are uncertain about the effects of physical activity for symptom score for LUTS (MD -6.2, 95% CI -9.9 to -2.5); response rate (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.21; 424 more men per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 1000 more); and withdrawal due to adverse events (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.06; 65 fewer men per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 65 fewer).Physical activity as part of weight reduction programme versus watchful waitingOne RCT randomised 130 participants. An unclear type of intense exercise was one of multiple intervention components. The evidence was of very low quality, and we are uncertain about the effects for symptom score for LUTS (MD -1.1, 95% CI -3.5 to 1.3); response rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.94; 67 more men per 1000, 95% CI 87 fewer to 313 more); and withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.57; 184 more men per 1000, 95% CI 9 more to 459 more).Physical activity versus alpha-blockersOne RCT randomised 41 participants to pelvic floor exercise or alpha-blockers. The evidence was of very low quality, and we are uncertain about the effects for symptom score for LUTS (MD 2.8, 95% CI -0.9 to 6.4) and response rate (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 167 fewer men per 1000, 95% CI 375 fewer to 125 more). The evidence was of low quality for withdrawal due to adverse events; the effects for this outcome may be similar between interventions (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.89; 7 fewer men per 1000, 95% CI 49 fewer to 626 more). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We rated the quality of the evidence for most of the effects of physical activity for LUTS/BPO as very low. We are therefore uncertain whether physical activity affects symptom scores for LUTS, response rate, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Our confidence in the estimates was lowered due to study limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. Additional high-quality research is necessary.

Exercise for cancer cachexia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia is a multi-factorial syndrome characterised by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass, with or without a loss of fat mass, which leads to progressive functional impairment. Physical exercise may attenuate the effects of cancer cachexia via several mechanisms, including the modulation of muscle metabolism, insulin sensitivity and levels of inflammation. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the effects of exercise, compared to usual care or no treatment, on lean body mass, the main biomarker of cachexia, in adults with cancer. Secondary objectives, subject to the availability of data, were to examine the acceptability and safety of exercise in this setting and to compare effects according to the characteristics of the exercise intervention or patient population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases CENTRAL (Issue 6, 2014) , MEDLINE (1946 to June 2014), EMBASE (1974 to June 2014), DARE and HTA (Issue 6, 2014), ISI Web of Science (1900 to June 2014), LILACS (1985 to 28 June 2014), PEDro (inception to 28 June 2014), SciVerse SCOPUS (inception to 28 June 2014), Biosis Previews PreMEDLINE (1969 to June 2014) and Open Grey (inception to 28 June 2014). We also searched for ongoing studies, checked reference lists and contacted experts to seek potentially relevant research. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults meeting the clinical criteria for cancer cachexia comparing a programme of exercise as a sole or adjunct intervention to no treatment or an active control. We imposed no language restriction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of articles for relevance and extracted data on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes from potentially relevant articles. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 3154 individual references, of which we removed 3138 after title screening and read 16 in full. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and effectiveness of exercise for patients with cancer cachexia. Randomised controlled trials (i.e., preferably parallel-group or cluster-randomised trials) are required to test the effectiveness of exercise in this group. There are ongoing studies on the topic, so we will update this review to incorporate the findings.

Water-based exercise for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common condition characterised by airway inflammation and airway narrowing, which can result in intermittent symptoms of wheezing, coughing and chest tightness, possibly limiting activities of daily life. Water-based exercise is believed to offer benefits for people with asthma through pollen-free air, humidity and effects of exercise on physical function. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of water-based exercise for adults with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), PsycINFO, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) and Google Scholar on 13 May 2014. We handsearched ongoing clinical trial registers and meeting abstracts of the American Thoracic Society (ATS), the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the British Thoracic Society (BTS). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with asthma comparing a water-based exercise group versus one or more of the following groups: usual care, land-based exercise, non-exercise. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (AJG, VS) independently extracted data from the primary studies using a standard form developed for this purpose, which includes methods, participants, interventions and outcomes. We contacted trial authors to request additional data. Data were input by one review author and were double-checked by a second review author. MAIN RESULTS: In this systematic review, we provide a narrative synthesis of available evidence from three small studies including 136 adult participants. The studies were at high risk of bias. No meta-analysis was possible because of methodological and interventional heterogeneity between included studies. The primary outcomes of quality of life and exacerbations leading to use of steroids were not reported by these studies. For exacerbations leading to health centre/hospital visits, uncertainty was wide because a very small number of events was reported (in a single study). Secondary outcomes symptoms, lung function, changes in medication and adverse effects, where available, described for each included study. The overall quality of the studies was very low, and no clear differences were noted between water-based exercise and comparator treatments. Therefore, we remain very uncertain about the effects of water-based exercise for adults with asthma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small number of participants in the three included studies, the clinical and methodological heterogeneity observed and the high risk of bias assessed mean that we are unable to assess the place of water-based exercise in asthma. Randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of water-based exercise for adults with asthma. For future research, we suggest greater methodological rigour (participant selection, blinding of outcome assessors, reporting of all outcomes analysed and registering of the study protocol).

Pressure support versus T-tube for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is important in caring for patients with critical illness. Clinical complications, increased mortality, and high costs of health care are associated with prolonged ventilatory support or premature discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Weaning refers to the process of gradually or abruptly withdrawing mechanical ventilation. The weaning process begins after partial or complete resolution of the underlying pathophysiology precipitating respiratory failure and ends with weaning success (successful extubation in intubated patients or permanent withdrawal of ventilatory support in tracheostomized patients). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two strategies, a T-tube and pressure support ventilation, for weaning adult patients with respiratory failure that required invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours, measuring weaning success and other clinically important outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to June 2012); EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2012); LILACS (1986 to June 2012); CINAHL (1982 to June 2012); SciELO (from 1997 to August 2012); thesis repository of CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) (http://capesdw.capes.gov.br/capesdw/) (August 2012); and Current Controlled Trials (August 2012).We reran the search in December 2013. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a T-tube with pressure support (PS) for the conduct of spontaneous breathing trials and as methods of gradual weaning of adult patients with respiratory failure of various aetiologies who received invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Meta-analyses using the random-effects model were conducted for nine outcomes. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were used to estimate the treatment effect, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with 1208 patients; 622 patients were randomized to a PS spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and 586 to a T-tube SBT. The studies were classified into three categories of weaning: simple, difficult, and prolonged. Four studies placed patients in two categories of weaning. Pressure support ventilation (PSV) and a T-tube were used directly as SBTs in four studies (844 patients, 69.9% of the sample). In 186 patients (15.4%) both interventions were used along with gradual weaning from mechanical ventilation; the PS was gradually decreased, twice a day, until it was minimal and periods with a T-tube were gradually increased to two and eight hours for patients with difficult and prolonged weaning. In two studies (14.7% of patients) the PS was lowered to 2 to 4 cm H2O and 3 to 5 cm H2O based on ventilatory parameters until the minimal PS levels were reached. PS was then compared to the trial with the T-tube (TT).We identified 33 different reported outcomes in the included studies; we took 14 of them into consideration and performed meta-analyses on nine. With regard to the sequence of allocation generation, allocation concealment, selective reporting and attrition bias, no study presented a high risk of bias. We found no clear evidence of a difference between PS and TT for weaning success (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, 9 studies, low quality of evidence), intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.23, 5 studies, low quality of evidence), reintubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26, 7 studies, low quality evidence), ICU and long-term weaning unit (LWU) length of stay (MD -7.08 days, 95% CI -16.26 to 2.1, 2 studies, low quality of evidence) and pneumonia (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence). PS was significantly superior to the TT for successful SBTs (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17, 4 studies, moderate quality of evidence). Four studies reported on weaning duration, however we were unable to combined the study data because of differences in how the studies presented their data. One study was at high risk of other bias and four studies were at high risk for detection bias. Three studies reported that the weaning duration was shorter with PS, and in one study the duration was shorter in patients with a TT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, we have found evidence of generally low quality from studies comparing pressure support ventilation (PSV) and with a T-tube. The effects on weaning success, ICU mortality, reintubation, ICU and LWU length of stay, and pneumonia were imprecise. However, PSV was more effective than a T-tube for successful spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) among patients with simple weaning. Based on the findings of single trials, three studies presented a shorter weaning duration in the group undergoing PS SBT, however a fourth study found a shorter weaning duration with a T-tube.

Conservative interventions for treating exercise-related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal, ligamentous and osseous groin injuries are common in athletes and may result in a delay of several months to resume sports. Even then, this may not be at the former level of sport activity. The treatment of exercise-related groin pain is mainly conservative (non-surgical), using interventions such as exercises, electrotherapy, manual therapy and steroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of conservative interventions for treating exercise-related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (December 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1948 to November week 3 2011); EMBASE (1980 to Week 49 2011); CINAHL (1982 to December 2011); LILACS (1982 to December 2011); PEDro (1929 to December 2011), SPORTDiscus (1985 to December 2011), OTseeker (to December 2011), reference lists of papers and conference proceedings (2000 to 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for treating exercise-related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain were included. Studies comparing conservative with surgical treatments were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments. There was no pooling of data. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies, involving a total of 122 participants who had experienced adductor-related groin pain for at least two months, were included in this review. All but one of the participants were male athletes aged between 18 and 50 years old. Both studies were assessed as 'high risk of bias' for at least one source of bias domain. The 'successful treatment' outcome reported in both studies was based primarily on pain measures.One study, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, found a significant difference favouring exercise therapy (strengthening with an emphasis on the adductor and abdominal muscles and training muscular co-ordination) compared with 'conventional' physiotherapy (stretching exercises, electrotherapy and transverse friction massage) in successful treatment at 16-week follow-up (25/34 (74%) versus 10/34 (29%); risk ratio (RR) 2.50, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.37, P = 0.001). Similarly, of those followed-up significantly more athletes treated by exercise therapy returned to sport at the same level (23/29 (79%) versus 4/30 (13%); RR 5.95, 95% CI 2.34 to 15.09, P = 0.0002). Although still favouring the exercise group, the differences between the two groups in patients' subjective global assessment at 16 weeks and successful treatment at 8 to 12 years follow-up were not statistically significant.The second study (54 participants) found no significant differences at 16-week follow-up between a multi-modal treatment (heat, manual therapy and stretching) and exercise therapy (the same intervention as in the above study) for the outcomes of successful treatment (14/26 (54%) versus 12/22 (55%); RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.66, P = 0.96) and return to full sports participation (13/26 (50%) versus 12/22 (55%); RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.58, P = 0.75). Those returning to full sports participation returned on average 4.5 weeks earlier after receiving multi-modal therapy (mean difference -4.50 weeks, 95% CI -8.60 to -0.40, P = 0.03) than those in the exercise therapy group. This study reported that there were no complications or side effects found in either intervention group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence from the randomized trials is insufficient to advise on any specific conservative modality for treating exercise-related groin pain. While still low quality, the best evidence is from one trial which found that exercise therapy (strengthening of hip and abdominal muscles) in athletes improves short-term outcomes (based primarily on pain measures) and return to sports compared with physiotherapy consisting of passive modalities. Given the low quality of the available evidence from both included trials, further randomized trials are necessary to reinforce their findings.