Dataset Information

Double blind randomised controlled trial of two different breathing techniques in the management of asthma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous studies have shown that breathing techniques reduce short acting beta(2) agonist use and improve quality of life (QoL) in asthma. The primary aim of this double blind study was to compare the effects of breathing exercises focusing on shallow nasal breathing with those of non-specific upper body exercises on asthma symptoms, QoL, other measures of disease control, and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose. This study also assessed the effect of peak flow monitoring on outcomes in patients using breathing techniques.

Methods

After a 2 week run in period, 57 subjects were randomised to one of two breathing techniques learned from instructional videos. During the following 30 weeks subjects practised their exercises twice daily and as needed for relief of symptoms. After week 16, two successive ICS downtitration steps were attempted. The primary outcome variables were QoL score and daily symptom score at week 12.

Results

Overall there were no clinically important differences between the groups in primary or secondary outcomes at weeks 12 or 28. The QoL score remained unchanged (0.7 at baseline v 0.5 at week 28, p = 0.11 both groups combined), as did lung function and airway responsiveness. However, across both groups, reliever use decreased by 86% (p<0.0001) and ICS dose was reduced by 50% (p<0.0001; p>0.10 between groups). Peak flow monitoring did not have a detrimental effect on asthma outcomes.

Conclusion

Breathing techniques may be useful in the management of patients with mild asthma symptoms who use a reliever frequently, but there is no evidence to favour shallow nasal breathing over non-specific upper body exercises.

SUBMITTER: Slader CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2104698 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Double blind randomised controlled trial of two different breathing techniques in the management of asthma.

Slader C A CA Reddel H K HK Spencer L M LM Belousova E G EG Armour C L CL Bosnic-Anticevich S Z SZ Thien F C K FC Jenkins C R CR

Thorax 20060303 8

<h4>Background</h4>Previous studies have shown that breathing techniques reduce short acting beta(2) agonist use and improve quality of life (QoL) in asthma. The primary aim of this double blind study was to compare the effects of breathing exercises focusing on shallow nasal breathing with those of non-specific upper body exercises on asthma symptoms, QoL, other measures of disease control, and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose. This study also assessed the effect of peak flow monitoring on out ...[more]

PMID: 16517572

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite effective pharmacotherapy, asthma continues to impair quality of life for most patients. Non-pharmacological approaches, including breathing retraining, are therefore of great interest to patients. However, clinicians rarely advocate breathing retraining and access to this intervention is restricted for most patients due to the limited availability of suitable physiotherapists and poor integration of breathing retraining into standard care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a digital self-guided breathing retraining intervention.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 34 general practices in the UK. Eligibility criteria for patients with asthma were broad, comprising a physician diagnosis of asthma, age of 16-70 years, receipt of at least one anti-asthma medication in the previous year, and impaired asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [AQLQ] score of <5·5). We developed a self-guided intervention, which was delivered as a DVD plus a printed booklet (DVDB). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the DVDB intervention, three face-to-face breathing retraining sessions, or standard care, in a 2:1:2 ratio, for 12 months. Randomisation was achieved using the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit telephone randomisation service by use of random number generators. The primary outcome was the AQLQ score in the intention-to-treat population at 12 months. The trial was powered to show equivalence between the two active intervention groups, and superiority of both intervention groups over usual care. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported and physiological measures of asthma control, patient acceptability, and health-care costs. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN88318003.FindingsBetween Nov 5, 2012 and Jan 28, 2014, invitations to participate in the study were sent to 15 203 patients with general practitioner-diagnosed asthma, of whom 655 were recruited into the study. AQLQ scores at 12 months were significantly higher in the DVDB group (mean 5·40, SD 1·14) than in the usual care group (5·12, SD 1·17; adjusted mean difference 0·28, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·44), and in the face-to-face group (5·33, SD 1·06) than in the usual care group (adjusted mean difference 0·24, 95% CI 0·04 to 0·44); AQLQ scores were similar between the DVDB group and the face-to-face group (0·04, 95% CI -0·16 to 0·24). There were no significant differences between the randomisation groups in FEV1 or fraction of exhaled nitric oxide. 744 adverse events occurred in 272 patients: 101 (39%) of 261 patients in the DVDB group, 55 (42%) of 132 patients in the face-to-face group, and 132 (50%) of 262 in the usual care group, with patients reporting one or more event. 11 (4%) patients in the DVDB group, four (3%) patients in the face-to-face group, and 20 (8%) patients in the usual care group had a serious adverse event.InterpretationBreathing retraining programmes improve quality of life in patients with incompletely controlled asthma despite having little effect on lung function or airway inflammation. Such programmes can be delivered conveniently and cost-effectively as a self-guided digital audiovisual programme, so might also reduce health-care costs.FundingUK National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) time profile after 3 weeks' treatment with once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) olodaterol (at the same total daily dose) versus placebo delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe asthma.Patients were randomised to different sequences of olodaterol with 2-week washout, either as a total daily dose of 5 ?g (5 ?g QD [AM] or 2.5 ?g BID) or placebo, or 10 ?g (10 ?g QD [AM] or 5 ?g BID) or placebo. Primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response (defined as change from study baseline FEV1) after 3 weeks. Key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses.Two hundred and six patients received treatment. All olodaterol treatments demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24 response at 3 weeks versus placebo (p?<?0.0001); adjusted mean treatment difference versus placebo was 0.191 L for olodaterol 2.5 ?g BID (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.152, 0.229), 0.150 L for 5 ?g QD (95 % CI 0.111, 0.189), 0.228 L for 5 ?g BID (95 % CI 0.190, 0.266) and 0.209 L for 10 ?g QD (95 % CI 0.170, 0.247). These results were supported by the key secondary end points. Olodaterol 5 ?g QD provided numerically lower mean values for 24-h bronchodilation than olodaterol 2.5 ?g BID (p?=?0.0465), with no statistically significant difference between treatment with olodaterol 10 ?g QD and 5 ?g BID. No relevant differences in morning and evening peak expiratory flow or Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 3 weeks were observed between different doses and regimens. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and comparable between groups.All doses and dose frequencies provided adequate 24-h bronchodilation superior to placebo. Based on the results of this study, it would be reasonable to include both posologies of 5 ?g olodaterol daily (5 ?g QD or 2.5 ?g BID, both delivered in two puffs per dose from the Respimat® inhaler) in subsequent studies. Further studies are necessary to confirm the optimum dosing regimen in asthma. No safety concerns were identified.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311661.

Project description:BackgroundTiotropium, a once-daily long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator, when administered via Respimat® SoftMist™ inhaler (tiotropium Respimat®) significantly reduces the risk of severe exacerbations and improves lung function in patients with severe persistent asthma that is not fully controlled despite using inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists. To further explore the dose-response curve in asthma, we investigated the efficacy and safety of three different doses of tiotropium Respimat® as add-on to ICS in symptomatic patients with moderate persistent asthma.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study, patients were randomised to tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg or 1.25 μg or placebo Respimat®, once daily in the evening. Each treatment was administered for 4 weeks, without washout between treatment periods. Eligibility criteria included ≥60% and ≤90% of predicted normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and seven-question Asthma Control Questionnaire mean score of ≥1.5. Patients were required to continue maintenance treatment with stable medium-dose ICS for at least 4 weeks prior to and during the treatment period. Long-acting β2-agonists were not permitted during the treatment phase. The primary efficacy end point was peak FEV1 measured within 3 hours after dosing (peak FEV1(0-3h)) at the end of each 4-week period, analysed as a response (change from study baseline).ResultsIn total, 149 patients were randomised and 141 completed the study. Statistically significant improvements in peak FEV1(0-3h) response were observed with each tiotropium Respimat® dose versus placebo (all P < 0.0001). The largest difference from placebo was with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (188 mL). Trough FEV1 and FEV1 area under the curve (AUC)(0-3h) responses were greater with each tiotropium Respimat® dose than with placebo (all P < 0.0001), and both were greatest with 5 μg. Peak forced vital capacity (FVC)(0-3h), trough FVC and FVC AUC(0-3h) responses, versus placebo, were greatest with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0012 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between placebo and all tiotropium Respimat® groups.ConclusionsOnce-daily tiotropium Respimat® add-on to medium-dose ICS improves lung function in symptomatic patients with moderate asthma. Overall, improvements were largest with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01233284.

Dataset Information

Double blind randomised controlled trial of two different breathing techniques in the management of asthma.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Double blind randomised controlled trial of two different breathing techniques in the management of asthma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets