| Literature DB >> 31709006 |
Takakazu Oka1,2, Tokusei Tanahashi1, Battuvshin Lkhagvasuren1,3, Yu Yamada2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a previous randomized controlled trial, we found that practicing seated isometric yoga regularly for 2 months improved the fatigue of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) who are resistant to conventional therapy. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the possible mechanisms behind this finding by comparing blood biomarkers, autonomic nervous function, and psychological indices before versus after an intervention period of seated isometric yoga practice.Entities:
Keywords: Alexithymia; Chronic fatigue syndrome; Cytokine; Heart rate variability; Isometric yoga; Myalgic encephalomyelitis; TNF-α
Year: 2019 PMID: 31709006 PMCID: PMC6836361 DOI: 10.1186/s13030-019-0168-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biopsychosoc Med ISSN: 1751-0759
Fig. 1Schematic representation of this study and related previous studies. In the first study, we compared the changes in Chalder FS scores in yoga and control groups in an RCT [25]. In the second study, we investigated the short-term effect of seated isometric yoga, in which POMS, ANS function, and blood biomarkers except α-MSH were compared just before (pre-yoga) and after a single session of seated isometric yoga (post-yoga) on the day of the last visit of the intervention period [26]. In this study, we investigated the longitudinal effects of seated isometric yoga, in which Chalder FS scores, ANS function, blood biomarkers, HADS, and TAS-20 were compared on the day of the first visit before practicing yoga (pre-intervention) and the day of the last visit before practicing yoga (post-intervention) following an intervention period. Marks in blue were measured in both the yoga group and the control group. Marks in black were measured only in the yoga group. In this study, we again showed changes in the Chalder FS scores (■), which had been previously reported [25]. Most, but not all, data on the blood biomarkers and ANS tests of the pre-yoga period in the second study [26] were the same as those of the post-intervention period in the present study. For details, please read the associated text. INT, intervention
Changes in Chalder FS scores and blood biomarkers by a two-month yoga intervention in the yoga group
| Profile | RV | Pre | Post | ∆ | 95% CI | UPV | FPV | C | FC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatigue | |||||||||
| Chalder FS score | 25.9 ± 6.1 | 19.2 ± 7.5 | −6.7 ± 6.9 | − 10.6; − 2.9 |
|
| |||
| Serum biomarkers | |||||||||
| Cortisol (μg/dL) | 3–20 | 11.5 ± 8.3 |
| −1.0 ± 4.7 | −3.7; 1.7 | 0.552 | 1 | 0.601 | 0.801 |
| DHEA-S (μg/dL) | 13–290 | 178.4 ± 67.7 | 180.5 ± 66.5 | 2.1 ± 25.2 | −12.5; 16.6 | 0.763 | 1 | 0.794 | 0.907 |
| TNF-α (pg/mL) | 0.7–1.7 |
| 0.8 ± 0.2 | −0.1 ± 0.3 | − 0.2; 0.1 | 0.478 | 1 |
|
|
| IL-6 (pg/mL) | < 4.0 |
| 1.2 ± 0.6 | 0.1 ± 0.7 | −0.3; 0.5 | 0.478 | 1 | 0.833 | 0.833 |
| PRL (ng/mL) | < 20 | 11.4 ± 6.3 | 11.1 ± 6.3 |
| −3.6; 2.9 | 0.839 | 0.958 | 0.219 | 0.876 |
| Carnitine | |||||||||
| Total (μmol/L) | 45–91 | 53 ± 12.5 | 52.6 ± 12.4 | 0.4 ± 10.0 | −5.9; 5.2 | 0.885 | 0.885 | 0.292 | 0.584 |
| Free (μmol/L) | 36–74 | 43.9 ± 11.3 | 43.1 ± 11.2 | −0.8 ± 10.3 | −6.5; 4.9 | 0.767 | 1 | 0.538 | 0.861 |
| Acyl (μmol/L) | 6–23 | 9.1 ± 3.1 | 9.6 ± 3.7 | 0.4 ± 3.4 | −1.5; 2.3 | 0.650 | 1 | 0.240 | 0.639 |
| Plasma biomarkers | |||||||||
| TGF-β1(ng/mL) | 1.6–3.2 |
| 10 ± 8.5 |
| −11.6; 5.5 | 0.753 | 0.941 | 0.943 | 0.943 |
| BDNF (pg/mL) | 6186–42,580 |
|
| − 1521 ± 5442 | − 4663; 1621 | 0.594 | 0.990 | 0.922 | 1 |
| MHPG (ng/mL) | 3.2–5.9 | 3.6 ± 1.1 |
| 0.1 ± 0.8 | −0.3; 0.5 | 0.925 | 0.925 | 0.880 | 1 |
| HVA (ng/mL) | 4.4–15.1 | 9.1 ± 3.7 |
|
| −1.9; 5.5 | 0.379 | 0.947 | 0.257 | 1 |
| α-MSH (pg/ml) | 12.7–14.5 | 16.8 ± 5.2 | 17.6 ± 5.1 | 0.8 ± 1.5 | −0.2; 1.8 | 0.112 | 0.560 | 0.580 | 1 |
| Autonomic function indices | |||||||||
| HR (bpm) | 88.1 ± 8.5 | 85 ± 9.5 | −3.1 ± 12.0 | −10.3; − 4.1 | 0.369 | 1 | 0.096 | 0.288 | |
| HF (ms2) | 83–3630 | 74.7 ± 79.4 | 70.4 ± 62.3 | −4.3 ± 87.4 | −57.1; 48.5 | 0.861 | 1 |
|
|
| LF (ms2) | 193–1009 |
|
|
| − 220.9; 304.0 | 0.972 | 0.972 | 0.563 | 0.563 |
| LF/HF | 1.1–11.6 |
|
|
| −2.8; 3.3 | 0.463 | 1 | 0.341 | 0.682 |
| CVR-R (%) |
| 3.5 ± 1.5 | −0.1 ± 2.3 | −1.4; 1.3 | 0.507 | 0.760 | 0.351 | 0.526 | |
| RR (/min) | 17.4 ± 3.9 | 16.4 ± 5.2 | −1.0 ± 5.1 | −4.1; 5.1 | 0.497 | 0.994 | 0.538 | 0.645 | |
Values are mean ± standard deviation
RV Reference values
Pre Mean values before intervention
Post Mean values after intervention
∆: The mean difference between Pre and Post values, i.e. Post value – Pre value
P value Paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test between Pre and Post values
95% CI 95% Confidence interval of ∆ (Lower bound; Upper bound)
UPV Unadjusted P values
FPV FDR-adjusted P values for multiple comparisons
C Correlation between ∆Chalder FS scores and ∆ values of plasma/serum biomarkers and autonomic function indices; two-tailed
FC FDR-adjusted P values for the correlations
n.s not significant, n = 11–15
The numbers on Italic: The probability of normal distribution is violated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
The numbers on bold indicate there is a significant difference
Effects of a two-month intervention on psychological test scores of the patients of the yoga group and those of the control group (each group n = 15)
| Profile | ∆ | Independent-sample | 2-way repeated ANOVA ( | Effect Size between Groups (Cohen’s | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yoga group | Control group | Group | Time | Group x Time | |||
| Chalder FS | −6.7 ± 6.9 | −0.3 ± 3.4 | 0.004 | 0.124 | 0.001 | 0.003 | −1.165 |
| TAS-20 | −0.4 ± 5.9 | −0.3 ± 5.7 | 0.950 | 0.778 | 0.755 | 0.950 | −0.017 |
| HADS-A | −0.8 ± 2.4 | −0.5 ± 2.9 | 0.786 | 0.172 | 0.181 | 0.786 | −0.113 |
| HADS-D | −2.6 ± 3.8 | 0.9 ± 2.7 | 0.008 | 0.075 | 0.163 | 0.008 | −1.062 |
Values are mean ± standard deviation
∆: The mean difference between Pre and Post values, i.e. Post value – Pre value
P values Tested with two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and unpaired-sample t-test
Fig. 2Correlations between the ∆Chalder FS score and ∆TNF-α (a), ∆HF (b), and ∆TAS-20 scores (c); each trend line indicates a linear relation between two respective variables. The normal P-P plot of the standardized residuals of the multiple regression analysis (d): ∆Chalder FS score as the dependent variable, ∆TNF-α, ∆HF, and ∆TAS-20 as the independent variables. This indicates that the residuals are normally distributed, and there are no outliers or influential points