Exercise as adjunctive therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 04 2023
19 04 2023
Historique:
medline:
20
4
2023
pubmed:
19
4
2023
entrez:
19
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a rare, chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease with a prevalence varying from 4.3 to 150 people in 100,000, or approximately five million people worldwide. Systemic manifestations frequently include internal organ involvement, a characteristic malar rash on the face, pain in joints and muscles, and profound fatigue. Exercise is purported to be beneficial for people with SLE. For this review, we focused on studies that examined all types of structured exercise as an adjunctive therapy in the management of SLE. To evaluate the benefits and harms of structured exercise as adjunctive therapy for adults with SLE compared with usual pharmacological care, usual pharmacological care plus placebo and usual pharmacological care plus non-pharmacological care. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 March 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise as an adjunct to usual pharmacological treatment in SLE compared with placebo, usual pharmacological care alone and another non-pharmacological treatment. Major outcomes were fatigue, functional capacity, disease activity, quality of life, pain, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to any reason, including any adverse events. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. fatigue, 2. functional capacity, 3. disease activity, 4. quality of life, 5. pain, 6. serious adverse events, and 7. withdrawals due to any reason. Our minor outcomes were 8. responder rate, 9. aerobic fitness, 10. depression, and 11. anxiety. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. The primary comparison was exercise compared with placebo. We included 13 studies (540 participants) in this review. Studies compared exercise as an adjunct to usual pharmacological care (antimalarials, immunosuppressants, and oral glucocorticoids) with usual pharmacological care plus placebo (one study); usual pharmacological care (six studies); and another non-pharmacological treatment such as relaxation therapy (seven studies). Most studies had selection bias, and all studies had performance and detection bias. We downgraded the evidence for all comparisons because of a high risk of bias and imprecision. Exercise plus usual pharmacological care versus placebo plus usual pharmacological care Evidence from a single small study (17 participants) that compared whole body vibration exercise to whole body placebo vibration exercise (vibrations switched off) indicated that exercise may have little to no effect on fatigue, functional capacity, and pain (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report disease activity, quality of life, and serious adverse events. The study measured fatigue using the self-reported Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), scale 0 to 52; lower score means less fatigue. People who did not exercise rated their fatigue at 38 points and those who did exercise rated their fatigue at 33 points (mean difference (MD) 5 points lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.29 lower to 3.29 higher). The study measured functional capacity using the self-reported 36-item Short Form health questionnaire (SF-36) Physical Function domain, scale 0 to 100; higher score means better function. People who did not exercise rated their functional capacity at 70 points and those who did exercise rated their functional capacity at 67.5 points (MD 2.5 points lower, 95% CI 23.78 lower to 18.78 higher). The study measured pain using the SF-36 Pain domain, scale 0 to 100; lower scores mean less pain. People who did not exercise rated their pain at 43 points and those who did exercise rated their pain at 34 points (MD 9 points lower, 95% CI 28.88 lower to 10.88 higher). More participants from the exercise group (3/11, 27%) withdrew from the study than the placebo group (1/10, 10%) (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 22.16). Exercise plus usual pharmacological care versus usual pharmacological care alone The addition of exercise to usual pharmacological care may have little to no effect on fatigue, functional capacity, and disease activity (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the addition of exercise improves pain (very low-certainty evidence), or results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events and quality of life were not reported. Exercise plus usual care versus another non-pharmacological intervention such as receiving information about the disease or relaxation therapy Compared with education or relaxation therapy, exercise may reduce fatigue slightly (low-certainty evidence), may improve functional capacity (low-certainty evidence), probably results in little to no difference in disease activity (moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in pain (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and serious adverse events were not reported. Due to low- to very low-certainty evidence, we are not confident on the benefits of exercise on fatigue, functional capacity, disease activity, and pain, compared with placebo, usual care, or advice and relaxation therapy. Harms data were not well reported.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a rare, chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease with a prevalence varying from 4.3 to 150 people in 100,000, or approximately five million people worldwide. Systemic manifestations frequently include internal organ involvement, a characteristic malar rash on the face, pain in joints and muscles, and profound fatigue. Exercise is purported to be beneficial for people with SLE. For this review, we focused on studies that examined all types of structured exercise as an adjunctive therapy in the management of SLE.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of structured exercise as adjunctive therapy for adults with SLE compared with usual pharmacological care, usual pharmacological care plus placebo and usual pharmacological care plus non-pharmacological care.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise as an adjunct to usual pharmacological treatment in SLE compared with placebo, usual pharmacological care alone and another non-pharmacological treatment. Major outcomes were fatigue, functional capacity, disease activity, quality of life, pain, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to any reason, including any adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. fatigue, 2. functional capacity, 3. disease activity, 4. quality of life, 5. pain, 6. serious adverse events, and 7. withdrawals due to any reason. Our minor outcomes were 8. responder rate, 9. aerobic fitness, 10. depression, and 11. anxiety. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. The primary comparison was exercise compared with placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies (540 participants) in this review. Studies compared exercise as an adjunct to usual pharmacological care (antimalarials, immunosuppressants, and oral glucocorticoids) with usual pharmacological care plus placebo (one study); usual pharmacological care (six studies); and another non-pharmacological treatment such as relaxation therapy (seven studies). Most studies had selection bias, and all studies had performance and detection bias. We downgraded the evidence for all comparisons because of a high risk of bias and imprecision. Exercise plus usual pharmacological care versus placebo plus usual pharmacological care Evidence from a single small study (17 participants) that compared whole body vibration exercise to whole body placebo vibration exercise (vibrations switched off) indicated that exercise may have little to no effect on fatigue, functional capacity, and pain (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report disease activity, quality of life, and serious adverse events. The study measured fatigue using the self-reported Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), scale 0 to 52; lower score means less fatigue. People who did not exercise rated their fatigue at 38 points and those who did exercise rated their fatigue at 33 points (mean difference (MD) 5 points lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.29 lower to 3.29 higher). The study measured functional capacity using the self-reported 36-item Short Form health questionnaire (SF-36) Physical Function domain, scale 0 to 100; higher score means better function. People who did not exercise rated their functional capacity at 70 points and those who did exercise rated their functional capacity at 67.5 points (MD 2.5 points lower, 95% CI 23.78 lower to 18.78 higher). The study measured pain using the SF-36 Pain domain, scale 0 to 100; lower scores mean less pain. People who did not exercise rated their pain at 43 points and those who did exercise rated their pain at 34 points (MD 9 points lower, 95% CI 28.88 lower to 10.88 higher). More participants from the exercise group (3/11, 27%) withdrew from the study than the placebo group (1/10, 10%) (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 22.16). Exercise plus usual pharmacological care versus usual pharmacological care alone The addition of exercise to usual pharmacological care may have little to no effect on fatigue, functional capacity, and disease activity (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the addition of exercise improves pain (very low-certainty evidence), or results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events and quality of life were not reported. Exercise plus usual care versus another non-pharmacological intervention such as receiving information about the disease or relaxation therapy Compared with education or relaxation therapy, exercise may reduce fatigue slightly (low-certainty evidence), may improve functional capacity (low-certainty evidence), probably results in little to no difference in disease activity (moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in pain (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and serious adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to low- to very low-certainty evidence, we are not confident on the benefits of exercise on fatigue, functional capacity, disease activity, and pain, compared with placebo, usual care, or advice and relaxation therapy. Harms data were not well reported.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37073886
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014816.pub2
pmc: PMC10115181
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD014816Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 May;14(5):365-76
pubmed: 23571845
Soc Work Health Care. 2012;51(7):576-86
pubmed: 22905974
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Apr 19;4:CD014816
pubmed: 37073886
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 18;17(24):
pubmed: 33352985
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Q J Med. 1993 Jul;86(7):447-58
pubmed: 8210301
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010 Jul;62(7):950-9
pubmed: 20589695
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Aug;64(8):1159-66
pubmed: 22438298
Lupus. 2019 May;28(6):764-770
pubmed: 31042128
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020 May 1;59(5):921-922
pubmed: 31691830
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Oct 21;9(10):e28124
pubmed: 34673536
J Rheumatol. 2002 Mar;29(3):474-81
pubmed: 11908559
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 Dec;52(12):2187-95
pubmed: 23970541
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017 Oct;47(2):204-215
pubmed: 28477898
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2014 Sep 15;117(6):639-47
pubmed: 25038103
Autoimmun Rev. 2012 Dec;12(2):218-24
pubmed: 22776785
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Dec 15;53(6):838-44
pubmed: 16342102
Lupus. 2022 Apr;31(4):443-456
pubmed: 35264025
J Rheumatol. 2011 Apr;38(4):672-9
pubmed: 21239746
Lupus. 2010 Dec;19(14):1640-7
pubmed: 20709719
Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Sep 15;61(9):1143-51
pubmed: 19714615
Br J Rheumatol. 1995 Nov;34(11):1064-9
pubmed: 8542209
J Rheumatol. 2008 Apr;35(4):635-42
pubmed: 18322987
Lupus. 2021 May;30(6):946-955
pubmed: 33657920
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Sep 15;9(9):
pubmed: 34574989
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Oct;68(10):1505-13
pubmed: 26816223
N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 15;353(24):2550-8
pubmed: 16354891
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003 Sep;42(9):1050-4
pubmed: 12730519
Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(6):736-745
pubmed: 30926722
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020 Apr;50(2):342-353
pubmed: 31548048
Am J Hypertens. 2011 Nov;24(11):1194-200
pubmed: 21833040
J Clin Med. 2018 Nov 24;7(12):
pubmed: 30477218
Intern Med J. 2014 Dec;44(12a):1170-9
pubmed: 25169712
Lupus. 2013 Dec;22(14):1479-83
pubmed: 24135080
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 May 26;16:62
pubmed: 27387456
Ann Rheum Dis. 1981 Oct;40(5):466-9
pubmed: 6895450
J Rheumatol. 2014 Feb;41(2):194-205
pubmed: 24293581
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2014 Oct 01;10:775-86
pubmed: 25328393
Lupus. 2011 Oct;20(12):1293-9
pubmed: 21700656
Acta Clin Belg. 2016 Dec;71(6):403-406
pubmed: 27377292
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Apr 15;53(2):308-12
pubmed: 15818657
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Jan;68(1):141-8
pubmed: 26238554
Palliat Med. 2020 May;34(5):667-679
pubmed: 32081088
Adv Rheumatol. 2019 Jul 29;59(1):34
pubmed: 31358064
Cureus. 2018 Sep 11;10(9):e3288
pubmed: 30443458
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2017 Aug;14(4):306-315
pubmed: 28432856
Front Immunol. 2018 Apr 27;9:906
pubmed: 29755474
Lupus. 2001;10(6):439-44
pubmed: 11434580
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015 May;67(5):701-7
pubmed: 25251755
Lupus. 1999;8(8):685-91
pubmed: 10568907
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Dec;56(6):617-35
pubmed: 17118041
J Rheumatol. 2011 Sep;38(9):2077-9
pubmed: 21885524
Lupus. 2000;9(9):651-4
pubmed: 11199918
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013 Aug;43(1):77-95
pubmed: 23422269
Arch Osteoporos. 2019 Dec 4;15(1):1
pubmed: 31802295
Br J Rheumatol. 1989 Dec;28(6):500-5
pubmed: 2590802
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005 Oct;44(10):1267-76
pubmed: 15797980
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Feb;68(2):196-200
pubmed: 18385276
Exerc Immunol Rev. 2016;22:64-81
pubmed: 26859426
Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 Feb 03;17:21
pubmed: 25645739
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Jul;51(14):1065-1072
pubmed: 28455366
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Nov;65(11):1752-65
pubmed: 23609952
Transpl Immunol. 2022 Feb;70:101516
pubmed: 34922023
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021 Jul;27:191-199
pubmed: 34391233
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Nov 3;9(11):e18291
pubmed: 33141101
Disabil Rehabil. 2022 May;44(10):1863-1871
pubmed: 32878503
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 5;13(3):e0193728
pubmed: 29505598
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160
pubmed: 33781993
Lupus. 2003;12(4):327-31
pubmed: 12729060
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Apr;34(2):101504
pubmed: 32249021
Rheumatol Int. 2015 Jan;35(1):61-9
pubmed: 24972700
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Dec;50(23):1428-1437
pubmed: 27707738
Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Mar 1;145(5):408-15
pubmed: 9048514
Arthritis Care Res. 2000 Oct;13(5):262-9
pubmed: 14635294
Scand J Rheumatol. 2016;45(3):197-201
pubmed: 26525835
RMD Open. 2020 Jan;6(1):
pubmed: 31958285
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Aug 15;57(6):972-9
pubmed: 17665467
BMJ. 2020 Jan 16;368:l6890
pubmed: 31948937
Lupus. 2016 May;25(6):602-16
pubmed: 26768748
Tohoku J Exp Med. 2015;237(3):193-9
pubmed: 26490344