Benefits and mechanisms of exercise intervention in the pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchial asthma, bronchiectasis.

The total exercise workload is an important factor influencing immune health. Appropriately prescribed physical activity can mitigate the detrimental effects of chronic inflammation, bolster the body’s defenses against both infectious and non-infectious diseases, and decelerate the immunosenescence process. Physiological and immune system responses to moderate and strenuous exercise workloads vary markedly. This narrative review summarizes current findings on the impacts of moderate-intensity exercise, high-intensity interval training, and strenuous and prolonged exercise on immune health, elucidating their specific effects and underlying mechanisms. Additionally, the role of challenging environmental conditions in shaping immune responses to exercise is also briefly considered. The insights presented here are intended to guide healthy individuals in selecting evidence-based exercise training protocols that are compatible with both health promotion and immune health. Moreover, this review offers prospective research directions, particularly regarding personalized exercise regimens and the interaction between exercise and environmental factors, providing valuable perspectives for scholars within the field of exercise immunology.

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) alone and combined HIIT programs compared with usual care on cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and pain related to cancer or cancer-related treatments. Methods: Articles published prior to January 2023 were searched in the following digital databases: PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect. Randomized controlled trials were included that met the following criteria: (i) adult cancer patients and survivors (>18 yr old); (ii) HIIT or combined HIIT programs versus usual care; (iii) assessment of fatigue and pain. Cochrane tool was used for assessing Risk of Bias (RoB) and Review Manager (RevMan 5.2) was used for data analysis. Results: Based on limited number (12) of studies included, we found HIIT and combined HIIT interventions have significant effect sizes on reducing both CRF (standardized mean difference, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.84; P < 0.001) and cancer-associated pain (standardized mean difference, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.25–0.63; P < 0.001). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that HIIT and combined HIIT programs can reduce CRF and pain.

The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between lower limb muscle activation, co-activation characteristics, and running economy (RE). Twenty-nine male recreational runners participated in two sessions: during the first session, body composition and RE at 10 km·h−1 were measured, while during the second session, we assessed muscle activation using sEMG for rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), biceps femoris (BF), gluteus maximus (GM), tibialis anterior (TA), gastrocnemius lateralis (LG), gastrocnemius medialis (MG), and soleus (SOL) muscles. Additionally, seven pairs of agonist-antagonist co-activation ratios were calculated. Pearson's and statistical non-parameters mapping (SnPM) correlation analyses were used to evaluate the muscular activity and RE, respectively. Pearson’s analysis showed that GM, VM, VL, LG, MG, and SOL activation during the stance phase was negatively correlated with RE (r = −0.499 to −0.592, p < 0.05), whereas RF and VL activation during the initial swing phase was positively correlated with RE (r = 0.522, r = 0.527; p < 0.05). Regarding muscle co-activation, the SOL-TA in the propulsion, the BF-VL, and GM-RF during the initial swing phase were negatively correlated with RE (r = −0.506 to −0.634, p < 0.05). In contrast, the RF-BF in the terminal swing phase was positively correlated with RE (r = 0.578, p < 0.05). Unfortunately, SnPM analysis did not show significant results. In conclusion, greater lower limb muscle activation during the stance phase is associated with better RE. During the swing phase, the co-activation of the high activation of the posterior thigh muscles (GM, BF) and the lower activation of the anterior thigh muscles (quadriceps) is associated with better RE.

Objectives: This meta-analysis evaluated the effects of exercise interventions on key health outcomes in adults with SLE, including fatigue, physical function, aerobic capacity, disease activity, depression and pain. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we systematically searched four databases up to February 2025 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults diagnosed with SLE according to the American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) criteria. Eligible studies examined aerobic, resistance or combined exercise as the sole intervention. Meta-analyses were conducted using Hedges’ g, the Risk of Bias 2 (ROB-2) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system used to assess bias and evidence quality. Results: Twelve RCTs involving 470 participants were included. Exercise showed small-to-moderate improvements in fatigue (g=−0.53, 95% CI −0.81 to −0.25, p<0.001), physical function (g=0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68, p<0.001), aerobic capacity (g=0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.71, p<0.001), depression (g=−0.36, 95% CI −0.64 to −0.09, p=0.01) and pain (g=−0.53, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.20, p<0.001), with no significant change in disease activity (g=0.18, 95% CI −0.16 to 0.51, p=0.30). Subgroup analyses suggested greater benefits with moderate-intensity programmes lasting 8–12 weeks. GRADE rated the evidence as moderate for fatigue, physical function, depression and pain, and low for other outcomes. Conclusion: Exercise is an effective non-pharmacological therapy in SLE management, improving several physical and psychological outcomes. Individualised, moderate-intensity and supervised programmes are recommended. Further research should optimise intervention protocols and evaluate long-term safety. PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251115953