Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Structured physical activity improves FEV1% predicted by 5.79 and PAQLQ scores in patients with asthmaStructured Physical Activity Shows Benefits for People with Asthma

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that structured physical activity is associated with improved FEV1% predicted and higher quality of life scores.

This meta-analysis evaluates the impact of structured physical activity interventions lasting at least 6 weeks on pulmonary function and quality of life in patients with asthma across a broad age range. The analysis included data from 1,280 participants to assess various respiratory metrics.

The synthesis found significant improvements in several key outcomes: FEV1% predicted (MD = 5.79; 95% CI: 1.89–9.69), PEF (MD = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.08–0.85), and FVC (MD = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.25–0.84). Additionally, the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ) showed a significant improvement (MD = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.45–1.81). Conversely, no significant differences were observed for FVC% predicted, PEF% predicted, or FEV1 in absolute units.

The authors note several limitations, including high heterogeneity (I2 = 89.16%) for FEV1% predicted and low to very low certainty of evidence across most primary outcomes due to risk of bias. There is a noted discordance between predicted-value and absolute-unit scales across pulmonary function outcomes. Clinical application should be interpreted with caution given the lower quality of evidence.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis addresses gaps in non-pharmacological management for asthma by providing evidence on structured physical activity. While it does not directly relate to the nutritional factors (ultra-processed food) or biological markers (HLA-DPA1/DPB1) mentioned in prior coverage, it provides a quantitative basis for exercise as an adjunctive therapy to improve lung function and quality of life in patients with asthma.

A review of data from 1,280 patients across various ages looked at how structured physical activity affects those with asthma. The study focused on programs lasting at least six weeks to see if they improved breathing measurements and daily life.

The results showed that these exercise programs were linked to improvements in lung function scores and quality of life. Specifically, the data showed an increase in forced expiratory volume (FEV1) as a percentage of predicted values and better peak flow rates. These findings suggest that staying active can be a helpful part of managing asthma symptoms.

However, it is important to note that the evidence for these results is not very strong. The researchers found high levels of variation in the data and some risk of bias in the original trials. Because of these factors, the findings are currently seen as preliminary rather than a definitive rule for everyone.

What this means for you:
Structured exercise for 6 weeks or more may improve lung function and quality of life for people with asthma.

Common questions

How long should the exercise program last?

The study looked at structured physical activity interventions that lasted for at least 6 weeks. These programs were compared against other measures to see if they helped people with asthma improve their lung function and overall quality of life.

Does exercise actually improve lung function in asthma patients?

The data showed a significant improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1) as a percentage of predicted values. It also showed improvements in peak flow rates and other measures of lung capacity for the 1,280 participants included in the review.

Is the evidence for exercise and asthma very strong?

The certainty of the evidence is currently low to very low. This is because the studies included had a high level of variation and some risk of bias, meaning more research is needed to confirm these findings clearly.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundPhysical activity is increasingly recognized as a non-pharmacological adjunct in asthma management, yet existing systematic reviews are limited by single-modality scope, narrow age ranges, and inconsistent operationalization of pulmonary function outcomes. We comprehensively evaluated the effects of physical activity on pulmonary function and quality of life in patients with asthma across a broad age range and multiple exercise modalities.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CNKI up to April 25, 2026, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of structured physical activity interventions ( ≥ 6 weeks) in asthma. The primary outcome was forced expiratory volume in 1 s as a percentage of predicted value (FEV1% predicted); secondary outcomes were FVC% predicted, PEF% predicted, PEF (L/s), FEV1 (L), FVC (L), and the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ). Random-effects meta-analyses used the restricted maximum likelihood estimator. Heterogeneity was explored via subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2 and certainty of evidence with GRADE.ResultsTwenty-two RCTs (n = 1,280) were included. Physical activity significantly improved FEV1% predicted (MD = 5.79, 95% CI: 1.89–9.69; I2 = 89.16%), PEF (L/s) (MD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.08–0.85), FVC (L) (MD = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.25–0.84), and PAQLQ (MD = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.45–1.81), but not FVC% predicted, PEF% predicted, or FEV1 (L). Meta-regression did not identify intervention duration, weekly frequency, session duration, or intervention type as significant moderators for either FEV1% predicted or FVC% predicted (all P > 0.20). Egger’s test and trim-and-fill indicated no significant publication bias. Certainty of evidence was low for FEV1% predicted and very low for FVC% predicted, PEF% predicted, and PAQLQ.ConclusionPhysical activity is associated with improved FEV1% predicted and PAQLQ in patients with asthma, but overall certainty is low, mainly due to risk of bias and heterogeneity. The systematic discordance between predicted-value and absolute-unit scales across pulmonary function outcomes highlights the need for standardized outcome reporting in future trials.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.