Prehabilitation programs for individuals with cancer: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation programs focusing on exercise training as the main component are known as a promising alternative for improving patients' outcomes before cancer surgery. This systematic review determined the benefits and harms of prehabilitation programs compared with usual care for individuals with cancer. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to June 2022, and hand searched clinical trial registries. We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) in adults, survivors of any type of cancer, that compared prehabilitation programs that had exercise training as the major component with usual care or other active interventions. Outcome measures were health-related quality of life (HRQL), muscular strength, postoperative complications, average length of stay (ALOS), handgrip strength, and physical activity levels. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs (2682 participants) published between 2010 and 2022 met our inclusion criteria. Colorectal and lung cancers were the most common diagnoses. The studies had methodological concerns regarding outcome measurement, selective reporting, and attrition. Five prehabilitation programs were compared to usual care (rehabilitation): combined training, aerobic training, respiratory muscle training plus aerobic training, respiratory muscle training plus resistance training, and pelvic floor training. The studies provided no clear evidence of an effect between groups. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations and imprecision. CONCLUSION: Prehabilitation programs focusing on exercise training may have an effect on adults with cancer, but the evidence is very uncertain. We have very little confidence in the results and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from these. Further research is needed before we can draw a more certain conclusion. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42019125658.

Effects of resistance training on C-reactive protein in menopausal and postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IMPORTANCE: Menopause is a biological stage associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality due to changes in sex hormone levels. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate the benefits and harms of RT in menopausal and postmenopausal women. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 2021, and clinical trial registries. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) in menopausal and postmenopausal women that compared women undergoing RT programs with a control group were included. The primary outcomes were C-reactive protein level and adverse events; and, the secondary outcomes were lipid profile and waist circumference. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed the completeness of RT programs, risk of bias, and quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE). A random-effects model was used. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. FINDINGS: Twelve RCTs published from 2012 to 2020 met the inclusion criteria (n = 482). Four follow-up periods were assessed. RT caused reductions in C-reactive protein levels compared to those in the control group in postmenopausal women in the short- to long-term follow-up (mean difference, -0.47 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, -0.66 to -0.29; P < 0.00001). Furthermore, RT may reduce C-reactive protein levels even at moderate and moderate-to-high intensity ( P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005, respectively). Similar findings were found for lipid profiles in the short- to long-term follow-up ( P < 0.05). RT may have had little to no effect on waist circumference. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed as very low and downgraded owing to serious study limitations, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was very low-quality evidence supporting the benefits of RT compared with control for C-reactive protein levels and lipid profile. No benefits were found for the outcome of waist circumference in postmenopausal women with different comorbidities or risk factors. Safety data were scarce. We have little confidence in the results, and the true effect is likely to be substantially different. Further well-conducted and well-reported RCTs are warranted to strengthen the evidence. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020213125.

The effect of exercise training on blood pressure in menopause and postmenopausal women: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

The prevalence of hypertension is higher in postmenopausal than in premenopausal women. Regular exercise training has been shown to be effective in addressing hypertension. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the effect of exercise training on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in menopausal and postmenopausal women. This review was reported according to the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO. The literature search was done in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials. Randomized controlled trials involving menopausal and postmenopausal women undergoing exercise training were included. Two blinded reviewers assessed risk of bias in the included studies by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random-effects model was used for all analyses. Significance was set at P < 0.05. Compared with the control group, exercise training resulted in clinically significant reductions on SBP (MD -3.43 mmHg; 95% CI, -5.16, -1.71; P < 0.0001), DBP (MD, -2.25 mmHg; 95% CI, -3.40, -1.11; P = 0.0001) and MAP (MD, -3.48 mmHg; 95% CI, -5.84, -1.11; P = 0.004). Aerobic training (AT) did not produce a significant reduction in SBP, DBP and MAP (P >0.05). Combined training (CT) generated larger reductions. Exercise training generated small but clinically relevant reductions in SBP, DBP and MAP in menopausal and postmenopausal women, younger or older than 65 years, with prehypertension or hypertension. AT did not lead to a clinically relevant improvement in blood pressure (BP) in this population. In addition, CT showed the largest reductions in SBP, DBP and MAP.

Is Low-Intensity Isometric Handgrip Exercise an Efficient Alternative in Lifestyle Blood Pressure Management? A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: High blood pressure is one of the leading preventable causes of cardiovascular death worldwide. In this regard, several studies have shown interest in the benefits of isometric exercise on blood pressure regulation. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether low-intensity isometric handgrip exercise (LI-IHE) is an effective strategy to lower blood pressure levels in prehypertensive and hypertensive patients. DATA SOURCE: This study was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement and registered with PROSPERO. Potentially eligible studies were identified after a systematic search conducted on 4 international databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials that comprised patients who received LI-IHE. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. DATA EXTRACTION: Data related to patient characteristics, exercise programs, risk-of-bias assessment, and outcomes of interest were systematically reviewed independently by 2 authors. RESULTS: The following reductions (mean differences) were observed after LI-IHE: systolic blood pressure (SBP), (MD) = -5.43 mm Hg; (95% CI, -8.47 to -2.39; P = 0.0005); diastolic blood pressure (DBP), -2.41 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.33 to -0.48; P = 0.01); mean arterial pressure (MAP), -1.28 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.99 to 0.44; P = 0.14). CONCLUSION: LI-IHE seems to lower SBP, DBP, and MAP values in prehypertensive and hypertensive adults. It appears that LI-IHE reduces, in greater magnitude, blood pressure levels in hypertensive patients, specifically in patients aged <45 years, those who are overweight, and those on medications. Nevertheless, substantial heterogeneity in the main results and in the analyses by subgroups generated uncertainty about the real reduction magnitude that LI-IHE can produce on blood pressure.

Effect of Isometric Resistance Training on Blood Pressure Values in a Group of Normotensive Participants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Cardiovascular diseases cause 17 million deaths annually worldwide, of which hypertension is responsible for 9.4 million and a 7% burden of disease. High blood pressure is responsible for 45% of deaths from heart disease and 51% of deaths from stroke. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effect of isometric resistance training on systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure (SBP, DBP, and MAP, respectively) values in normotensive adult participants. DATA SOURCES: This study was registered with the PROSPERO database. Eligible studies were identified after performing a systematic search within the following databases: PubMed, Scielo, BioMed Central, Clinical Trials, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EBSCO. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that categorized participants as normotensive according to the guidelines of the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology were included. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1. DATA EXTRACTION: Data related to participant characteristics, exercise programs, level of evidence, risk of bias, Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template, and outcomes of interest were systematically reviewed independently by 2 authors. RESULTS: A total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included. The following reductions in blood pressure (compared with the control group) were generated by isometric resistance training: SBP (mean difference [MD], -2.83 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.95 to -1.72; P < 0.00001), DBP (MD, -2.73; 95% CI, -4.23 to -1.24; P = 0.0003), and MAP (MD, -3.07; 95% CI, -5.24 to -0.90; P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: It appears that isometric resistance training reduces SBP, DBP, and MAP in normotensive young adults in a statistically significant and clinically relevant manner. This type of exercise could be considered effective in preventing arterial hypertension.

Prehabilitation programs for cancer patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (protocol).

BACKGROUND: Around twenty million new cases and ten million of deaths were attributed to cancer in 2018. Physical exercise, as main component of prehabilitation programs, has been associated with clinical improvements in aerobic capacity, muscular strength, gait speed, and fewer postoperative complications. This systematic review aims to determine the benefits and harms of prehabilitation programs, mainly composed of physical exercise, compared with standard care for cancer patients. METHODS/DESIGN: A librarian will systematically search for randomized controlled trials in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), and EMBASE. Two independent reviewers will independently screen the retrieved references, appraise the methodological quality of the included studies, and extract data. If possible, we will pool the data. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting of prehabilitation programs by using the CERT checklist, and the GRADE approach will be used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will determine the benefits and harms of prehabilitation programs for cancer patients. We will provide a complete appraisal of the quality of the evidence, our confidence in the results, and completeness of reporting of the exercise interventions evaluated in the prehabilitation programs. Findings from this review will assist health care providers, patients, decision-makers, and international organizations to make informed decisions in this field. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019125658.