Rafaël Stelmach

Abstract Rationale Clinical control is difficult to achieve in obese patients with asthma. Bariatric surgery has been recommended for weight loss and to improve asthma control; however, the benefits of nonsurgical interventions have been poorly investigated. Objectives To examine the effect of exercise training in a weight-loss program on asthma control, quality of life, inflammatory biomarkers, and lung function. Methods Fifty-five obese patients with asthma were randomly assigned to either a weight-loss program plus exercise (WL + E group, n = 28) or a weight-loss program plus sham (WL + S group, n = 27), where the weight-loss program included nutrition (caloric restriction) and psychological therapies. The WL + E group incorporated aerobic and resistance muscle training, whereas the WL + S group incorporated breathing and stretching exercises. Measurements and Main Results The primary outcome was clinical improvement in asthma control over 3 months. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, lung function, body composition, aerobic capacity, muscle strength, and inflammatory/antiinflammatory biomarkers. After 3 months, 51 patients were analyzed. Compared with the WL + S group, the WL + E group demonstrated improved clinical control scores (median [25th to 75th percentile], −0.7 [−1.3 to −0.3] vs. −0.3 [−0.9 to 0.4]; P = 0.01) and greater weight loss (mean ± SD, −6.8% ± 3.5 vs. −3.1% ± 2.6; P < 0.001) and aerobic capacity (median [25th to 75th percentile], 3.0 [2.4 to 4.0] vs. 0.9 [−0.3 to 1.3] ml O2 × kg−1 × min−1; P < 0.001). These improvements in the WL + E group were also accompanied by improvements in lung function, antiinflammatory biomarkers, and vitamin D levels, as well as reductions in airway and systemic inflammation. Conclusions Adding exercise to a short-term weight-loss program should be considered as a useful strategy for achieving clinical control of asthma in obese patients. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02188940).

BACKGROUND: The benefits of aerobic training for the main features of asthma, such as bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) and inflammation, are poorly understood. We investigated the effects of aerobic training on BHR (primary outcome), serum inflammatory cytokines (secondary outcome), clinical control and asthma quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ)) (tertiary outcomes). METHODS: Fifty-eight patients were randomly assigned to either the control group (CG) or the aerobic training group (TG). Patients in the CG (educational programme+breathing exercises (sham)) and the TG (same as the CG+aerobic training) were followed for 3 months. BHR, serum cytokine, clinical control, AQLQ, induced sputum and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were evaluated before and after the intervention. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, 43 patients (21 CG/22 TG) completed the study and were analysed. The TG improved in BHR by 1 doubling dose (dd) (95% CI 0.3 to 1.7 dd), and they experienced reduced interleukin 6 (IL-6) and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1) and improved AQLQ and asthma exacerbation (p<0.05). No effects were seen for IL-5, IL-8, IL-10, sputum cellularity, FeNO or Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 (ACQ-7; p>0.05). A within-group difference was found in the ACQ-6 for patients with non-well-controlled asthma and in sputum eosinophil and FeNO in patients in the TG who had worse airway inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic training reduced BHR and serum proinflammatory cytokines and improved quality of life and asthma exacerbation in patients with moderate or severe asthma. These results suggest that adding exercise as an adjunct therapy to pharmacological treatment could improve the main features of asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02033122.

PURPOSE: there is evidence suggesting that physical activity has anti-inflammatory effects in many chronic diseases; however, the role of exercise in airway inflammation in asthma is poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the effects of an aerobic training program on eosinophil inflammation (primary aim) and nitric oxide (secondary aim) in patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma. METHODS: sixty-eight patients randomly assigned to either control (CG) or aerobic training (TG) groups were studied during the period between medical consultations. Patients in the CG (educational program + breathing exercises; N = 34) and TG (educational program + breathing exercises + aerobic training; N = 34) were examined twice a week during a 3-month period. Before and after the intervention, patients underwent induced sputum, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), pulmonary function, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Asthma symptom-free days were quantified monthly, and asthma exacerbation was monitored during 3 months of intervention. RESULTS: at 3 months, decreases in the total and eosinophil cell counts in induced sputum (P = 0.004) and in the levels of FeNO (P = 0.009) were observed after intervention only in the TG. The number of asthma symptom-free days and VO(2max) also significantly improved (P < 0.001), and lower asthma exacerbation occurred in the TG (P < 0.01). In addition, the TG presented a strong positive relationship between baseline FeNO and eosinophil counts as well as their improvement after training (r = 0.77 and r = 0.9, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: aerobic training reduces sputum eosinophil and FeNO in patients with moderate or severe asthma, and these benefits were more significant in subjects with higher levels of inflammation. These results suggest that aerobic training might be useful as an adjuvant therapy in asthmatic patients under optimized medical treatment.