Key Considerations When Addressing Physical Inactivity and Sedentary Behaviour in People with Asthma

People with asthma tend to be less physically active and more sedentary than people without asthma. This narrative review aimed to present key considerations when addressing physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour in people with asthma by identifying barriers and facilitators, determinants and correlates, and intervention approaches. Using a search strategy, electronic databases were searched for relevant studies. Data extracted from studies were qualitatively synthesised. A total of 26 studies were included in the review. Six studies reported asthma symptoms as a barrier to physical activity, while four studies reported having a supportive network as a physical activity facilitator. Across studies, physical activity correlates/determinants were pulmonary function, exercise capacity, body mass index, dyspnoea, psychological health, and asthma control. Interventions that effectively improved physical activity in the short term were a step-based prescription programme, a weight loss programme incorporating aerobic and resistance training, and a weight loss lifestyle intervention, while a high-intensity interval training pulmonary rehabilitation program was effective in the long term. The collective findings suggest that a personalised physical activity programme incorporating different strategies is needed. There was minimal evidence to provide recommendations to optimise sedentary behaviour in asthma, and more research is needed on the topic

Sedentary time in people with obstructive airway diseases

Sedentary time (ST) and light-intensity physical activity (LIPA) are movement behaviours associated with important health outcomes, but are not widely explored in respiratory diseases. We aimed to describe their volume and/or accumulation patterns in moderate-severe COPD, bronchiectasis and severe asthma using the accurate postural-based accelerometer activPAL, contrasting these values with a non-respiratory population. We also sought to test the cross-sectional associations of these behaviours with disease characteristics by diagnostic group, and as a combined label-free disease group. Results Adults with COPD (n = 64), bronchiectasis (n = 61), severe asthma (n = 27), and controls (n = 61) underwent cross-sectional measurements of volume and/or accumulation patterns of ST and LIPA. The prevalence and characteristics, and associations with exercise capacity, health-status, airflow-limitation, dyspnoea, systemic inflammation and exacerbations were analysed. ST volumes in COPD were higher than that of bronchiectasis and severe asthma. Values in bronchiectasis and severe asthma were similar to each other and controls (≈8.9 h/day). Their accumulation patterns were also significantly better than in COPD, but similar if not worse compared to controls. LIPA volumes in bronchiectasis and severe asthma were also higher than those of COPD (p < 0.05) and controls. In bronchiectasis and COPD, lower levels/better patterns of ST accumulation, as well as higher LIPA volume were associated with better clinical characteristics. These associations may be mediated by airflow limitation. Conclusions The discordance between engagement in ST volume versus ST patterns highlights the importance of accounting for both these different yet complementary metrics. ST and LIPA are low-intensity activities associated with important clinical characteristics in people with chronic respiratory diseases. Trial registration Not applicable

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19 (ENSEMBLE2) : results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose. Methods ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing. Findings Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36 center dot 0 (15 center dot 0-62 center dot 0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75 center dot 2% (adjusted 95% CI 54 center dot 6-87 center dot 3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55 center dot 6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57 center dot 5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58 center dot 5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52 center dot 7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity. Interpretation A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed. Funding Janssen Research & Development. Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd