Authors | Brief description | Sample | QoL scale used | Authors' main conclusion | Authors' conclusion about QoL outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
MUCOLYTIC THERAPIES | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Ranasinha et al. [27] | DNase vs placebo; two parallel groups | n = 71 (age = 16–55 years) mean FEV1 ≈ 47% | Ad hoc 9-item scale | Significant improvement in FEV1 but not in FVC | DNase did not improve overall well-being but improvements in feeling, cough frequency and chest congestion |
Ramsey et al. [28] | 3 doses of DNase vs placebo; 4 parallel groups | n = 181 (age 8–65 years) mean FEV1 between 58.6% and 84.6% for the 4 groups | Ad hoc 9-item scale | FEV1 and FVC improved across all doses compared with placebo | DNase associated with decreased dyspnoea and improved well-being |
Fuchs et al. [29] | 2 doses of DNase vs placebo; 3 parallel groups | n= 968 (age 5–54 years) mean FEV1 ≈ 60% | Ad hoc 9-item scale | Improved lung function on DNase | Increase in general well-being |
Wilmott et al. [30] | 2.5 mg DNase or placebo twice daily | n = 80 children and adults (age >5 years; mean ≈ 20) mean FEV1 ≈ 40% | Ad hoc scale | No effect of drug on change in FEV1 or FVC | No differences on well-being scales |
Suri et al. [31-33] | Open crossover study of DNase once daily 2.5 mg vs alternate day 2.5 mg and saline | n = 48 (age 7–17 years) (n = 40 completed study) | QWB-SA | No evidence of differences between active treatments; daily treatment better than saline for FEV1 | No effects |
Eng et al. [34] | 10 ml of either normal or hypertonic saline; parallel groups | n = 58 (age 7–26 years) mean FEV1≈ 52% | Ad hoc VAS of perceived change | Significant differential improvement from baseline in FEV1 for hypertonic saline | An improvement, but group difference did not reach statistical significance |
EXERCISE | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Selvadurai et al. [36] | Comparison of aerobic/ resistance training and standard care; 3 parallel groups | n = 66 (age 8–16 years) mean FEV1 ≈ 57% | QWB | Aerobic training better for peak aerobic capacity. Resistance training better for weight gain, lung function and leg strength | Aerobic training associated with better QoL |
Klijn et al. [37] | Anaerobic training vs normal daily activity; 2 parallel groups | n = 20 (age 9–18 years; mean 14 years) mean FEV1 = 75.2% (exercise group); 82.1% (control group) | Dutch CFQ | Anaerobic and aerobic performance improved in training group, but not control group | QoL improved in training group but not in control group |
Orenstein et al. [38] | Aerobic versus upper-body strength training | n = 62 (age 8–18 years) Analysis on 53 cases of complete data | QWB | Strength and aerobic training may increase upper-body strength, and physical work capacity | No significant effects |
PANCREATIC ENZYMES | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Gan et al. [39] | 4 versus 1 capsule daily crossover design | n = 13 (age 19–46 years; mean 28 years) mean BMI = 21 | Symptoms and general well-being on 10-point scale | No difference between treatments | No significant changes in scores for well-being |