Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in commercial respiratory interventions: an evidence-based guide for health and exercise professionals.

Respiratory function has become a global health priority. Not only is chronic respiratory disease a leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality, but the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened attention on respiratory health and the means of enhancing it. Subsequently, and inevitably, the respiratory system has become a target of the multi-trillion-dollar health and wellness industry. Numerous commercial, respiratory-related interventions are now coupled to therapeutic and/or ergogenic claims that vary in their plausibility: from the reasonable to the absurd. Moreover, legitimate and illegitimate claims are often conflated in a wellness space that lacks regulation. The abundance of interventions, the range of potential therapeutic targets in the respiratory system, and the wealth of research that varies in quality, all confound the ability for health and exercise professionals to make informed risk-to-benefit assessments with their patients and clients. This review focuses on numerous commercial interventions that purport to improve respiratory health, including nasal dilators, nasal breathing, and systematized breathing interventions (such as pursed-lips breathing), respiratory muscle training, canned oxygen, nutritional supplements, and inhaled L-menthol. For each intervention we describe the premise, examine the plausibility, and systematically contrast commercial claims against the published literature. The overarching aim is to assist health and exercise professionals to distinguish science from pseudoscience and make pragmatic and safe risk-to-benefit decisions.

Annual risk of falls resulting in emergency department and hospital attendances for older people: an observational study of 781,081 individuals living in Wales (United Kingdom) including deprivation, frailty and dementia diagnoses between 2010 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: falls are common in older people, but associations between falls, dementia and frailty are relatively unknown. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on falls admissions has not been studied. AIM: to investigate the impact of dementia, frailty, deprivation, previous falls and the differences between years for falls resulting in an emergency department (ED) or hospital admission. STUDY DESIGN: longitudinal cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: older people (aged 65+) resident in Wales between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. METHODS: we created a binary (yes/no) indicator for a fall resulting in an attendance to an ED, hospital or both, per person, per year. We analysed the outcomes using multilevel logistic and multinomial models. RESULTS: we analysed a total of 5,141,244 person years of data from 781,081 individuals. Fall admission rates were highest in 2012 (4.27%) and lowest in 2020 (4.27%). We found an increased odds ratio (OR [95% confidence interval]) of a fall admission for age (1.05 [1.05, 1.05] per year of age), people with dementia (2.03 [2.00, 2.06]) and people who had a previous fall (2.55 [2.51, 2.60]). Compared with fit individuals, those with frailty had ORs of 1.60 [1.58, 1.62], 2.24 [2.21, 2.28] and 2.94 [2.89, 3.00] for mild, moderate and severe frailty respectively. Reduced odds were observed for males (0.73 [0.73, 0.74]) and less deprived areas; most deprived compared with least OR 0.75 [0.74, 0.76]. CONCLUSIONS: falls prevention should be targeted to those at highest risk, and investigations into the reduction in admissions in 2020 is warranted.