Physical exercise for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.


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:
08 Apr 2024
Historique:
medline: 8 4 2024
pubmed: 8 4 2024
entrez: 8 4 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Physical exercise is effective in managing Parkinson's disease (PD), but the relative benefit of different exercise types remains unclear. To compare the effects of different types of physical exercise in adults with PD on the severity of motor signs, quality of life (QoL), and the occurrence of adverse events, and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking using network meta-analyses (NMAs). An experienced information specialist performed a systematic search for relevant articles in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 17 May 2021. We also searched trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies up to this date. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of physical exercise for adults with PD to another type of exercise, a control group, or both. Two review authors independently extracted data. A third author was involved in case of disagreements. We categorized the interventions and analyzed their effects on the severity of motor signs, QoL, freezing of gait, and functional mobility and balance up to six weeks after the intervention using NMAs. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and rated the confidence in the evidence using the CINeMA approach for results on the severity of motor signs and QoL. We consulted a third review author to resolve any disagreements. Due to heterogeneous reporting of adverse events, we summarized safety data narratively and rated our confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 154 RCTs with a total of 7837 participants with mostly mild to moderate disease and no major cognitive impairment. The number of participants per study was small (mean 51, range from 10 to 474). The NMAs on the severity of motor signs and QoL included data from 60 (2721 participants), and 48 (3029 participants) trials, respectively. Eighty-five studies (5192 participants) provided safety data. Here, we present the main results. We observed evidence of beneficial effects for most types of physical exercise included in our review compared to a passive control group. The effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL are expressed as scores on the motor scale of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-M) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), respectively. For both scales, higher scores denote higher symptom burden. Therefore, negative estimates reflect improvement (minimum clinically important difference: -2.5 for UPDRS-M and -4.72 for PDQ-39). Severity of motor signs The evidence from the NMA (60 studies; 2721 participants) suggests that dance and gait/balance/functional training probably have a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (dance: mean difference (MD) -10.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.87 to -5.36; gait/balance/functional training: MD -7.50, 95% CI -11.39 to -3.48; moderate confidence), and multi-domain training probably has a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (MD -5.90, 95% CI -9.11 to -2.68; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that endurance, aqua-based, strength/resistance, and mind-body training might have a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (endurance training: MD -5.76, 95% CI -9.78 to -1.74; aqua-based training: MD -5.09, 95% CI -10.45 to 0.40; strength/resistance training: MD -4.96, 95% CI -9.51 to -0.40; mind-body training: MD -3.62, 95% CI -7.24 to 0.00; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of "Lee Silverman Voice training BIG" (LSVT BIG) and flexibility training on the severity of motor signs (LSVT BIG: MD -6.70, 95% CI -16.48 to 3.08; flexibility training: MD 4.20, 95% CI -1.61 to 9.92; very low confidence). Quality of life The evidence from the NMA (48 studies; 3029 participants) suggests that aqua-based training probably has a large beneficial effect on QoL (MD -15.15, 95% CI -23.43 to -6.87; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that mind-body, gait/balance/functional, and multi-domain training and dance might have a small beneficial effect on QoL (mind-body training: MD -7.22, 95% CI -13.57 to -0.70; gait/balance/functional training: MD -6.17, 95% CI -10.75 to -1.59; multi-domain training: MD -5.29, 95% CI -9.51 to -1.06; dance: MD -3.88, 95% CI -10.92 to 3.00; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of gaming, strength/resistance, endurance, and flexibility training on QoL (gaming: MD -8.99, 95% CI -23.43 to 5.46; strength/resistance training: MD -6.70, 95% CI -12.86 to -0.35; endurance training: MD -6.52, 95% CI -13.74 to 0.88; flexibility training: MD 1.94, 95% CI -10.40 to 14.27; very low confidence). Adverse events Only 85 studies (5192 participants) provided some kind of safety data, mostly only for the intervention groups. No adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40 studies and no serious AEs occurred in four studies. AEs occurred in 28 studies. The most frequently reported events were falls (18 studies) and pain (10 studies). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical exercise on the risk of adverse events (very low confidence). Across outcomes, we observed little evidence of differences between exercise types. We found evidence of beneficial effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL for most types of physical exercise for people with PD included in this review, but little evidence of differences between these interventions. Thus, our review highlights the importance of physical exercise regarding our primary outcomes severity of motor signs and QoL, while the exact exercise type might be secondary. Notably, this conclusion is consistent with the possibility that specific motor symptoms may be treated most effectively by PD-specific programs. Although the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of exercise on the risk of adverse events, the interventions included in our review were described as relatively safe. Larger, well-conducted studies are needed to increase confidence in the evidence. Additional studies recruiting people with advanced disease severity and cognitive impairment might help extend the generalizability of our findings to a broader range of people with PD.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Physical exercise is effective in managing Parkinson's disease (PD), but the relative benefit of different exercise types remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of different types of physical exercise in adults with PD on the severity of motor signs, quality of life (QoL), and the occurrence of adverse events, and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking using network meta-analyses (NMAs).
SEARCH METHODS METHODS
An experienced information specialist performed a systematic search for relevant articles in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 17 May 2021. We also searched trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies up to this date.
SELECTION CRITERIA METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of physical exercise for adults with PD to another type of exercise, a control group, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS
Two review authors independently extracted data. A third author was involved in case of disagreements. We categorized the interventions and analyzed their effects on the severity of motor signs, QoL, freezing of gait, and functional mobility and balance up to six weeks after the intervention using NMAs. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and rated the confidence in the evidence using the CINeMA approach for results on the severity of motor signs and QoL. We consulted a third review author to resolve any disagreements. Due to heterogeneous reporting of adverse events, we summarized safety data narratively and rated our confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS RESULTS
We included 154 RCTs with a total of 7837 participants with mostly mild to moderate disease and no major cognitive impairment. The number of participants per study was small (mean 51, range from 10 to 474). The NMAs on the severity of motor signs and QoL included data from 60 (2721 participants), and 48 (3029 participants) trials, respectively. Eighty-five studies (5192 participants) provided safety data. Here, we present the main results. We observed evidence of beneficial effects for most types of physical exercise included in our review compared to a passive control group. The effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL are expressed as scores on the motor scale of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-M) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), respectively. For both scales, higher scores denote higher symptom burden. Therefore, negative estimates reflect improvement (minimum clinically important difference: -2.5 for UPDRS-M and -4.72 for PDQ-39). Severity of motor signs The evidence from the NMA (60 studies; 2721 participants) suggests that dance and gait/balance/functional training probably have a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (dance: mean difference (MD) -10.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.87 to -5.36; gait/balance/functional training: MD -7.50, 95% CI -11.39 to -3.48; moderate confidence), and multi-domain training probably has a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (MD -5.90, 95% CI -9.11 to -2.68; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that endurance, aqua-based, strength/resistance, and mind-body training might have a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (endurance training: MD -5.76, 95% CI -9.78 to -1.74; aqua-based training: MD -5.09, 95% CI -10.45 to 0.40; strength/resistance training: MD -4.96, 95% CI -9.51 to -0.40; mind-body training: MD -3.62, 95% CI -7.24 to 0.00; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of "Lee Silverman Voice training BIG" (LSVT BIG) and flexibility training on the severity of motor signs (LSVT BIG: MD -6.70, 95% CI -16.48 to 3.08; flexibility training: MD 4.20, 95% CI -1.61 to 9.92; very low confidence). Quality of life The evidence from the NMA (48 studies; 3029 participants) suggests that aqua-based training probably has a large beneficial effect on QoL (MD -15.15, 95% CI -23.43 to -6.87; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that mind-body, gait/balance/functional, and multi-domain training and dance might have a small beneficial effect on QoL (mind-body training: MD -7.22, 95% CI -13.57 to -0.70; gait/balance/functional training: MD -6.17, 95% CI -10.75 to -1.59; multi-domain training: MD -5.29, 95% CI -9.51 to -1.06; dance: MD -3.88, 95% CI -10.92 to 3.00; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of gaming, strength/resistance, endurance, and flexibility training on QoL (gaming: MD -8.99, 95% CI -23.43 to 5.46; strength/resistance training: MD -6.70, 95% CI -12.86 to -0.35; endurance training: MD -6.52, 95% CI -13.74 to 0.88; flexibility training: MD 1.94, 95% CI -10.40 to 14.27; very low confidence). Adverse events Only 85 studies (5192 participants) provided some kind of safety data, mostly only for the intervention groups. No adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40 studies and no serious AEs occurred in four studies. AEs occurred in 28 studies. The most frequently reported events were falls (18 studies) and pain (10 studies). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical exercise on the risk of adverse events (very low confidence). Across outcomes, we observed little evidence of differences between exercise types.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We found evidence of beneficial effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL for most types of physical exercise for people with PD included in this review, but little evidence of differences between these interventions. Thus, our review highlights the importance of physical exercise regarding our primary outcomes severity of motor signs and QoL, while the exact exercise type might be secondary. Notably, this conclusion is consistent with the possibility that specific motor symptoms may be treated most effectively by PD-specific programs. Although the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of exercise on the risk of adverse events, the interventions included in our review were described as relatively safe. Larger, well-conducted studies are needed to increase confidence in the evidence. Additional studies recruiting people with advanced disease severity and cognitive impairment might help extend the generalizability of our findings to a broader range of people with PD.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38588457
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013856.pub3
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04012086', 'NCT02488265', 'NCT00750945', 'NCT03079817', 'NCT02509611', 'NCT00591344', 'NCT01388556', 'NCT02622737', 'NCT03213873', 'NCT00982709', 'NCT02231073', 'NCT02236286', 'NCT00611481', 'NCT04048291', 'NCT01701128', 'NCT02807740', 'NCT01120392', 'NCT02999997', 'NCT01573260', 'NCT02966600', 'NCT03235284', 'NCT01257945', 'NCT01506479', 'NCT02253563', 'NCT01939717', 'NCT02302144', 'NCT03193268', 'NCT03189680', 'NCT02902510', 'NCT02418780', 'NCT01799681', 'NCT01301651', 'NCT03689764', 'NCT03882398', 'NCT03463330', 'NCT03637023', 'NCT04291027', 'NCT02593955', 'NCT03495193', 'NCT00004760', 'NCT00029809', 'NCT00167453', 'NCT00387218', 'NCT01014663', 'NCT01076712', 'NCT01246700', 'NCT01427062', 'NCT01439022', 'NCT01562496', 'NCT01757509', 'NCT01835652', 'NCT01960985', 'NCT02017938', 'NCT02267785', 'NCT02419768', 'NCT02476240', 'NCT02476266', 'NCT02615548', 'NCT02656355', 'NCT02674724', 'NCT02745171', 'NCT02816619', 'NCT03212014', 'NCT03406728', 'NCT03443752', 'NCT03568903', 'NCT03618901', 'NCT01636297', 'NCT02457832', 'NCT03244813', 'NCT03343574', 'NCT03560089', 'NCT03563807', 'NCT03582371', 'NCT03711955', 'NCT03751371', 'NCT02885285', 'NCT03833349', 'NCT03860649', 'NCT03882879', 'NCT03960931', 'NCT03972969', 'NCT03974529', 'NCT03983785', 'NCT04000360', 'NCT04046276', 'NCT04063605', 'NCT04122690', 'NCT04135924', 'NCT04194762', 'NCT04215900', 'NCT04379778', 'NCT04558879', 'NCT04613141', 'NCT04644367', 'NCT04665869', 'NCT04699617', 'NCT04863118', 'NCT04872153', 'NCT04878679']

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD013856

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Auteurs

Moritz Ernst (M)

Cochrane Haematology, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Ann-Kristin Folkerts (AK)

Medical Psychology, Neuropsychology and Gender Studies and Center for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Intervention (CeNDI), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Romina Gollan (R)

Medical Psychology, Neuropsychology and Gender Studies and Center for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Intervention (CeNDI), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Emma Lieker (E)

Medical Psychology, Neuropsychology and Gender Studies and Center for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Intervention (CeNDI), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Julia Caro-Valenzuela (J)

Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Anne Adams (A)

Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Nora Cryns (N)

Cochrane Haematology, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Ina Monsef (I)

Cochrane Haematology, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Antje Dresen (A)

Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Resarch, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), Faculty of Human Sciences and Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Mandy Roheger (M)

Ambulatory Assessment in Psychology, Department of Psychology, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Carsten Eggers (C)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Department of Neurology, Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bottrop GmbH, Bottrop, Germany.

Nicole Skoetz (N)

Cochrane Haematology, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Elke Kalbe (E)

Medical Psychology, Neuropsychology and Gender Studies and Center for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Intervention (CeNDI), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Classifications MeSH