Respiratory Training Shows Modest Benefits in ALS

Medscape

30-06-2025

TOPLINE:
Respiratory muscle training moderately improved lung function, especially respiratory muscle strength, in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) compared with no intervention or sham training.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of respiratory muscle training on lung function and respiratory muscle strength in patients with ALS.
They gathered data from five randomized controlled trials including 170 patients with ALS (mean age range, 53-63 years; 58.8%-69.2% men), majority of whom had spinal onset of the disease (72.9%-84.6%).
Researchers assessed the role of standalone respiratory muscle training and compared it with control conditions — physical exercise, usual care, or no intervention — to gauge its unique impact.
The outcomes included assessments of lung function, respiratory muscle strength, survival, functional capacity, and adverse events.
TAKEAWAY:
According to a meta-analysis of three trials, maximum expiratory pressure was superior in the group that underwent respiratory muscle training compared with control conditions (standardized mean difference [SMD], 19.53; P = .02).
Similarly, respiratory muscle training significantly improved the maximum inspiratory pressure compared with control conditions (SMD, 13.96; P = .010).
A meta-analysis of four trials found no significant difference in the forced vital capacity between the groups (SMD, 0.90; P = .14).
No studies reported serious adverse effects, supporting respiratory muscle training as a safe intervention for patients with ALS.
IN PRACTICE:
'RMT [respiratory muscle training] shows potential as an adjuvant intervention for patients with ALS,' the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by María Jesús Benzo-Iglesias, Health Research Centre, Humanidades-498 Research Group, University of Almería, Almería, Spain. It was published online on June 09, 2025, in Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease.
LIMITATIONS:
This study had a small sample size, which limited the generalizability of the findings. It comprised only five trials, which may have affected the findings' robustness and restricted the ability to perform sensitivity analyses. The wide CIs in the heterogeneity analysis indicated substantial heterogeneity.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.