Dataset Information

The efficacy of manual therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Manual therapy (MT) can be beneficial in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, evidence of the efficacy of MT for COPD is not clear. Therefore, we aimed to review the effects of MT, including Chuna, in people diagnosed with COPD.

Methods

MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Database (CNKI), KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database (KMbase), and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover RCTs were included. The main inclusion criteria were COPD diagnosis (forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity [FVC] < 0.70). The primary outcomes were lung function and exercise capacity. The secondary outcomes were symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and adverse event (AE)s. Studies reporting one or both of the primary outcomes were included. The Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Data synthesis and analysis were conducted according to the trial design.

Results

Of the 2564 searched articles, 13 studies were included. For the primary outcomes, the effect of MT on pulmonary function and exercise capacity in COPD was partly significant but could not be confirmed due to the limited number of studies included in the subgroups. For the secondary outcomes, no definitive evidence regarding the improvement of symptoms and QoL was found, and some minor adverse effects were reported.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to support the role of MT in the management of COPD. High-quality studies are needed to thoroughly evaluate the effect of MT on COPD.

SUBMITTER: Roh JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130973 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a challenging disease whose prevalence has increased over the last decades. Non-pharmacological therapies such as pulmonary rehabilitation occupy a core position in patient management. Among these therapies, manual therapy reduces symptoms and increases exercise capacity targeting musculoskeletal problems. Chuna, a traditional Korean manual therapy, has improved pulmonary disorders in clinical practice but unfortunately has not had its effects reported. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy, focused on the use of Chuna in the management of COPD patients. METHODS:The following databases will be used in this study: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Database (CNKI), KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database (KMbase), and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS). The primary outcome comprises lung function and exercise capacity. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, quality of life, and adverse events. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the searched studies, determine if they are suitable for inclusion, and perform data extraction. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. When appropriate, data will be pooled across studies for meta-analysis using a fixed or random effects model. When quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, the evidence will be summarized qualitatively. RESULTS:This study will provide a comprehensive review of the available evidence to assess the efficacy of Chuna for COPD patients. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated electronically and in print. CONCLUSIONS:This study will provide high-quality current evidence for evaluation the efficacy of Chuna for patients with COPD. Clinicians, patients and policy makers may find this review useful in making decisions regarding the use of Chuna for patients with COPD. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019141150.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend that treatment with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), i.e. triple therapy, is reserved for a select group of symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to exacerbate despite treatment with dual therapy (LABA/LAMA). A number of single-inhaler triple therapies are now available and important clinical questions remain over their role in the patient pathway. We compared the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler triple therapy to assess the magnitude of benefit and to identify patients with the best risk-benefit profile for treatment. We also evaluated and compared study designs and population characteristics to assess the strength of the evidence base. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search, from inception to December 2018, of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. RESULTS:We identified 523 records, of which 15 reports/abstracts from six RCTs were included. Triple therapy resulted in the reduction of the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the range of 15-52% compared with LAMA/LABA, 15-35% compared to LABA/ICS and 20% compared to LAMA. The patient-based number needed to treat for the moderate or severe exacerbation outcome ranged between approximately 25-50 (preventing one patient from having an event) and the event-based number needed to treat of around 3-11 (preventing one event). The absolute benefit appeared to be greater in patients with higher eosinophil counts or historical frequency of exacerbations and ex-smokers. In the largest study, there was a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia in the triple therapy arm. There were important differences in study designs and populations impacting the interpretation of the results and indicating there would be significant heterogeneity in cross-trial comparisons. CONCLUSION:The decision to prescribe triple therapy should consider patient phenotype, magnitude of benefit and increased risk of adverse events. Future research on specific patient phenotype thresholds that can support treatment and funding decisions is now required from well-designed, robust, clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO #CRD42018102125 .