Category Exercise Therapy October 2019, 2/2

Exercise Therapy and Health Outcomes through Exercise Interventions


  • Exercise is medicine in oncology: Engaging clinicians to help patients move through cancer. 🆓
  • American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable Report on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Cancer Prevention and Control. 🆓
  • Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. 🆓
  • It is time to move beyond ‚body region silos‘ to manage musculoskeletal pain: five actions to change clinical practice. 🆓
  • Cognitive functional therapy compared with a group-based exercise and education intervention for chronic low back pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). 🆓
  • Effectiveness of physical and cognitive-behavioural intervention programmes for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 🆓
  • Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with coronary heart disease, chronic heart failure and associated risk factors: A systematic review of economic evaluations of randomized clinical trials.
  • Effects of muscle strength training on muscle mass gain and hypertrophy in older adults with osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
  • Physical therapy for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis: supervised, active treatment is current best practice. 🆓
  • Comparing the influence of exercise intensity on brain-derived neurotrophic factor serum levels in people with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study.


Exercise is medicine in oncology: Engaging clinicians to help patients move through cancer. 🆓

Schmitz KH, Campbell AM, Stuiver MM, Pinto BM, Schwartz AL, Morris GS, Ligibel JA, Cheville A, Galvão DA, Alfano CM, Patel AV, Hue T, Gerber LH, Sallis R, Gusani NJ, Stout NL, Chan L, Flowers F, Doyle C, Helmrich S, Bain W, Sokolof J, Winters-Stone KM, Campbell KL, Matthews CE.

CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.3322/caac.21579. [Epub ahead of print]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31617590

Abstract

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence-based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health-related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine’s Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home-based or community-based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.


American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable Report on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Cancer Prevention and Control. 🆓

Patel AV, Friedenreich CM, Moore SC, Hayes SC, Silver JK, Campbell KL, Winters-Stone K, Gerber LH, George SM, Fulton JE, Denlinger C, Morris GS, Hue T, Schmitz KH, Matthews CE.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Nov;51(11):2391-2402. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002117.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31626056

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:
The American College of Sports Medicine convened an International Multidisciplinary Roundtable on Exercise and Cancer in March 2018 to evaluate and translate the evidence linking physical activity and cancer prevention, treatment, and control. This article discusses findings from the Roundtable in relation to the biologic and epidemiologic evidence for the role of physical activity in cancer prevention and survival.

RESULTS:
The evidence supports that there are a number of biologically plausible mechanisms, whereby physical activity can influence cancer risk, and that physical activity is beneficial for the prevention of several types of cancer including breast, colon, endometrial, kidney, bladder, esophageal, and stomach. Minimizing time spent in sedentary behavior may also lower risk of endometrial, colon and lung cancers. Conversely, physical activity is associated with higher risk of melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer. Further, physical activity before and after a cancer diagnosis is also likely to be relevant for improved survival for those diagnosed with breast and colon cancer; with data suggesting that postdiagnosis physical activity provides greater mortality benefits than prediagnosis physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS:
Collectively, there is consistent, compelling evidence that physical activity plays a role in preventing many types of cancer and for improving longevity among cancer survivors, although the evidence related to higher risk of melanoma demonstrates the importance of sun safe practices while being physically active. Together, these findings underscore the importance of physical activity in cancer prevention and control. Fitness and public health professionals and health care providers worldwide are encouraged to spread the message to the general population and cancer survivors to be physically active as their age, abilities, and cancer status will allow.


Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. 🆓

Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J, May AM, Schwartz AL, Courneya KS, Zucker DS, Matthews CE, Ligibel JA, Gerber LH, Morris GS, Patel AV, Hue TF, Perna FM, Schmitz KH.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Nov;51(11):2375-2390. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002116

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31626055

Abstract

PURPOSE:
The number of cancer survivors worldwide is growing, with over 15.5 million cancer survivors in the United States alone-a figure expected to double in the coming decades. Cancer survivors face unique health challenges as a result of their cancer diagnosis and the impact of treatments on their physical and mental well-being. For example, cancer survivors often experience declines in physical functioning and quality of life while facing an increased risk of cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality compared with persons without cancer. The 2010 American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable was among the first reports to conclude that cancer survivors could safely engage in enough exercise training to improve physical fitness and restore physical functioning, enhance quality of life, and mitigate cancer-related fatigue.

METHODS:
A second Roundtable was convened in 2018 to advance exercise recommendations beyond public health guidelines and toward prescriptive programs specific to cancer type, treatments, and/or outcomes.

RESULTS:
Overall findings retained the conclusions that exercise training and testing were generally safe for cancer survivors and that every survivor should „avoid inactivity.“ Enough evidence was available to conclude that specific doses of aerobic, combined aerobic plus resistance training, and/or resistance training could improve common cancer-related health outcomes, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life. Implications for other outcomes, such as peripheral neuropathy and cognitive functioning, remain uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed recommendations should serve as a guide for the fitness and health care professional working with cancer survivors. More research is needed to fill remaining gaps in knowledge to better serve cancer survivors, as well as fitness and health care professionals, to improve clinical practice.


It is time to move beyond ‚body region silos‘ to manage musculoskeletal pain: five actions to change clinical practice. 🆓

Caneiro JP, Roos EM, Barton CJ, O’Sullivan K, Kent P, Lin I, Choong P, Crossley KM, Hartvigsen J, Smith AJ, O’Sullivan P.

Br J Sports Med. 2019 Oct 11. pii: bjsports-2018-100488. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100488. [Epub ahead of print]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31604698

Current clinical research, education and practice commonly approaches musculoskeletal pain conditions in silos. A focus on body regions such as knee, hip, neck, shoulder and back pain as separate entities is manifest by region-specific clinical guidelines, conferences and working groups. Emerging evidence demonstrates that musculoskeletal pain disorders are frequently comorbid and share common biopsychosocial risk profiles for pain and disability. There is broad consensus across clinical guidelines on the recommendations for best practice, irrespective of body region. We contend that a shift to focus on the person is needed. This best practice approach will encourage clinicians to (1) focus on patients’ context and modifiable biopsychosocial factors that influence their pain and disability; (2) use education to facilitate active management approaches (targeted exercise therapy, physical activity and healthy lifestyle habits) and reduce reliance on passive interventions; and (3) consider evidence-based surgical procedures only for those with a clear indication and where guideline-based non-surgical approaches have been rigorously adhered to.


Cognitive functional therapy compared with a group-based exercise and education intervention for chronic low back pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). 🆓

O’Keeffe M, O’Sullivan P, Purtill H, Bargary N, O’Sullivan K.

Br J Sports Med. 2019 Oct 19. pii: bjsports-2019-100780. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100780. [Epub ahead of print]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31630089

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
One-size-fits-all interventions reduce chronic low back pain (CLBP) a small amount. An individualised intervention called cognitive functional therapy (CFT) was superior for CLBP compared with manual therapy and exercise in one randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, systematic reviews show group interventions are as effective as one-to-one interventions for musculoskeletal pain. This RCT investigated whether a physiotherapist-delivered individualised intervention (CFT) was more effective than physiotherapist-delivered group-based exercise and education for individuals with CLBP.

METHODS:
206 adults with CLBP were randomised to either CFT (n=106) or group-based exercise and education (n=100). The length of the CFT intervention varied according to the clinical progression of participants (mean=5 treatments). The group intervention consisted of up to 6 classes (mean=4 classes) over 6-8 weeks. Primary outcomes were disability and pain intensity in the past week at 6 months and 12months postrandomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models.

RESULTS:
CFT reduced disability more than the group intervention at 6 months (mean difference, 8.65; 95% CI 3.66 to 13.64; p=0.001), and at 12 months (mean difference, 7.02; 95% CI 2.24 to 11.80; p=0.004). There were no between-group differences observed in pain intensity at 6 months (mean difference, 0.76; 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54; p=0.056) or 12 months (mean difference, 0.65; 95% CI -0.20 to 1.50; p=0.134).

CONCLUSION:
CFT reduced disability, but not pain, at 6 and 12 months compared with the group-based exercise and education intervention. Future research should examine whether the greater reduction in disability achieved by CFT renders worthwhile differences for health systems and patients.


Effectiveness of physical and cognitive-behavioural intervention programmes for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 🆓

Cheng JOS, Cheng ST.

PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10;14(10):e0223367. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223367. eCollection 2019.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31600270

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of physical exercise cum cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) on alleviating pain intensity, functional disabilities, and mood/mental symptoms in those suffering with chronic musculoskeletal pain. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMEd, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials from inception to 31 December 2018. The inclusion criteria were: (a) adults ≥18 years old with chronic musculoskeletal pain ≥3 months, (b) randomised controlled design, (c) a treatment arm consisting of physical intervention and CBT combined, (d) the comparison arm being waitlist, usual care or other non-pharmacological interventions such as physical exercise or CBT alone, and (e) outcomes including pain intensity, pain-related functional disabilities (primary outcomes), or mood/mental symptoms (secondary outcome). The exclusion criteria were: (a) the presence of comorbid mental illnesses other than depression and anxiety and (b) non-English publication. The search resulted in 1696 records and 18 articles were selected for review. Results varied greatly across studies, with most studies reporting null or small effects but a few studies reporting very large effects up to 2-year follow-up. Pooled effect sizes (Hedges‘ g) were ~1.00 for pain intensity and functional disability, but no effect was found for mood/mental symptoms. The effects were mainly driven by several studies reporting unusually large differences between the exercise cum CBT intervention and exercise alone. When these outliers were removed, the effect on pain intensity disappeared at post-intervention while a weak effect (g = 0.21) favouring the combined intervention remained at follow-up assessment. More consistent effects were observed for functional disability, though the effects were small (g = 0.26 and 0.37 at post-intervention and follow-up respectively). More importantly, the value of adding CBT to exercise interventions is questionable, as consistent benefits were not seen. The clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.


Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with coronary heart disease, chronic heart failure and associated risk factors: A systematic review of economic evaluations of randomized clinical trials.

Oldridge N, Taylor RS.

Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Oct 26:2047487319881839. doi: 10.1177/2047487319881839. [Epub ahead of print]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31657233

Abstract

AIMS:
Prescribed exercise is effective in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic heart failure (CHF), intermittent claudication, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, hypertension or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is limited, shows large variations and is partly contradictory. Using World Health Organization and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology value for money thresholds, we report the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy, exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation.

METHODS:
Electronic databases were searched for incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-utility ratios and/or the probability of cost-effectiveness of exercise prescribed as therapy in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 July 2008 and 28 October 2018.

RESULTS:
Of 19 incremental cost-utility ratios reported in 15 RCTs in patients with CHD, CHF, intermittent claudication or BMI ≥25 kg/m2, 63% met both value for money thresholds as ‚highly cost-effective‘ or ‚high value‘, with 26% ’not cost-effective‘ or of ‚low value‘. The probability of intervention cost-effectiveness ranged from 23 to 100%, probably due to the different populations, interventions and comparators reported in the individual RCTs. Confirmation with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting checklist varied widely across the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS:
The findings of this review support the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with CHD, CHF, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 or intermittent claudication, but, with concerns about reporting standards, need further confirmation. No eligible economic evaluation based on RCTs was identified in patients with hypertension or T2DM.


Effects of muscle strength training on muscle mass gain and hypertrophy in older adults with osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liao CD, Chen HC, Kuo YC, Tsauo JY, Huang SW, Liou TH.

Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Oct 18. doi: 10.1002/acr.24097. [Epub ahead of print]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31628720

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
To investigate the effect of muscle strength exercise training (MSET) on lean mass (LM) gain and muscle hypertrophy in older patients with lower limb osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS:
A comprehensive search of online databases was performed until April 20, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the effects of MSET on LM, muscle thickness, and cross-sectional area (CSA) in older patients with OA were identified. A risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis were performed for the included RCTs.

RESULTS:
We included 19 RCTs with a median PEDro score of 6 (range: 3-7) out of 10. In total, 1195 patients (65% women, 85% with knee OA) with a mean age of 62.1 (range: 40-86) years were analyzed. MSET resulted in significantly higher LM gain (standard mean difference [SMD]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28, 0.71; P < 0.00001) than did the nonexercise controls. Meta-analysis results revealed significantly positive effects of MSET on muscle thickness (SMD: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.20, 1.43; P = 0.009) and CSA (SMD: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.35; P = 0.004) compared with nonexercise controls. No significant effects in favor of MSET were observed for any muscle outcome compared with exercise controls. Five RCTs reported nonsevere adverse events in response to MSET, whereas no RCTs reported severe events.

CONCLUSION:
MSET is effective in increasing LM and muscle size in older adults with OA. Clinicians should incorporate MSET into their management of patients at risk of low muscle mass to maximize health status, particularly for older individuals with OA.


Physical therapy for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis: supervised, active treatment is current best practice. 🆓

Skou ST, Roos EM.

Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019 Sep-Oct;37 Suppl 120(5):112-117. Epub 2019 Oct 15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31621559

Abstract

Most patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) should be treated in primary care by non-surgical treatments. Building on substantial evidence from randomised trials, exercise therapy and education, typically delivered by physical therapists, are core first line treatments universally recommended in treatment guidelines for OA alongside weight loss, if needed. Exercise therapy provides at least as effective pain relief as pharmacological pain medications, without serious adverse effects; furthermore, the treatment effect from exercise therapy is similar, irrespective of baseline pain intensity and radiographic OA severity. Exercise therapy should be individualised to the preferences and needs of the individual patient, but at least 12 supervised sessions, 2 sessions per week, are required initially to obtain sufficient clinical benefit. Structured patient education concerning OA and its treatment options, including self-management, is important to retain motivation and adherence to an exercise programme and thereby maintain the effects over the long-term. If treatment effects from exercise therapy and patient education are insufficient, the physical therapist can deliver supplementary interventions that include knee orthoses and manual treatment.


Comparing the influence of exercise intensity on brain-derived neurotrophic factor serum levels in people with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study.

O’Callaghan A, Harvey M, Houghton D, Gray WK, Weston KL, Oates LL, Romano B, Walker RW.

Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019 Oct 12. doi: 10.1007/s40520-019-01353-w. [Epub ahead of print]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31606860

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:
Endogenous brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is thought to be protective against the neurodegeneration seen in Parkinson’s disease (PD), and is thought to increase during exercise. This has been proposed as a possible mechanism by which exercise improves outcomes for people with PD. We conducted a pilot study to investigate the role of exercise intensity on BDNF levels in people with PD.

METHODS:
Participants of early- to mid-stage disease were recruited from a single PD service in north-east England, UK into two separate studies of exercise in PD, one involving moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and one involving high-intensity interval training (HIIT), both had control groups. In both the interventions, participants exercise three times per week for 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken for BDNF analysis at the start and end of the first session and the start and end of the final session, with corresponding samples taken in controls.

RESULTS:
Data were available for 27 participants (13 intervention, 14 control) in the MICT intervention and 17 (9 intervention, 8 control) in the HIIT intervention. BDNF level did not rise significantly from the start to end of individual sessions. Across the 12 week period, they rose significantly in the HIIT intervention group, but not in controls or the MICT intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS:
High-intensity interval training appears to have a greater impact on BDNF than MICT. Future work should directly compare exercise modalities and investigate the impact of BDNF levels on disease progression and quality of life.


Veröffentlicht von Dr. Carsten Müller

Sports Scientist & Exercise Therapist with broad research interests in Physical Activity 🚶‍♂️, Exercise 🏋️‍♂️, Mental Health 😎, Public Health 🙂, Sports Medicine 🏥, and a current research focus on the effects of repetitive head impacts in soccer ⚽ on neurocognitive function 🧠 as well as preventive approaches through specific exercise interventions.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

Erstelle deine Website auf WordPress.com
Jetzt starten
%d Bloggern gefällt das: