Physiotherapy breathing retraining for asthma: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite 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. METHODS: In 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. FINDINGS: Between 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. INTERPRETATION: Breathing 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. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research.

A randomised controlled study of the effectiveness of breathing retraining exercises taught by a physiotherapist either by instructional DVD or in face-to-face sessions in the management of asthma in adults.

BACKGROUND: Asthma control is suboptimal, resulting in quality of life (QoL) impairment and costs. Breathing retraining exercises have evidence of effectiveness as adjuvant treatment, but are infrequently used. OBJECTIVES: To transfer the contents of a brief (three-session) physiotherapist-delivered breathing retraining programme to a digital versatile disc (DVD) and booklet format; to compare the effectiveness of the self-guided intervention with that of 'face-to-face' physiotherapy and usual care for QoL and other asthma-related outcomes; to perform a health economic assessment of both interventions; and to perform a process evaluation using quantitative and qualitative methods. DESIGN: Parallel-group three-arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practice surgeries in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 655 adults currently receiving asthma treatment with impaired asthma-related QoL were randomly allocated to the DVD (n = 261), physiotherapist (n = 132) and control (usual care) (n = 262) arms in a 2 : 1 : 2 ratio. It was not possible to blind participants but data collection and analysis were performed blinded. INTERVENTIONS: Physiotherapy-based breathing retraining delivered through three 'face-to-face' respiratory physiotherapist sessions or a self-guided programme (DVD plus our theory-based behaviour change booklet) developed by the research team, with a control of usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was asthma-specific QoL, measured using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Secondary outcomes included asthma symptom control [Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)], psychological state [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)], hyperventilation symptoms (Nijmegen questionnaire), generic QoL [EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], assessments of airway physiology (spirometry) and inflammation (exhaled nitric oxide) and health resource use and costs. Assessments were carried out at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Patient engagement and experience were also assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Primary efficacy analysis was between-group comparison of changes in AQLQ scores from baseline to 12 months in the intention-to-treat population with adjustments for prespecified covariates. Significant improvements occurred in the DVD group compared with the control group [adjusted mean difference 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.44; p < 0.001] and in the face-to-face physiotherapy group compared with the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.44; p < 0.05), with equivalence between the DVD and the face-to-face physiotherapy groups (adjusted mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.24). In all sensitivity analyses, both interventions remained significantly superior to the control and equivalence between the interventions was maintained. In other questionnaire outcome measures and in the physiological measures assessed, there were no significant between-group differences. Process evaluations showed that participants engaged well with both of the active interventions, but that some participants in the DVD arm would have liked to receive tuition from a professional. Asthma health-care costs were lower in both intervention arms than in the control group, indicating 'dominance' for both of the interventions compared with the control, with lowest costs in the DVD arm. The rate of adverse events was lower in the DVD and face-to-face physiotherapy groups than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Only 10% of the potentially eligible population responded to the study invitation. However, breathing retraining exercises improved QoL and reduced health-care costs in adults with asthma whose condition remains uncontrolled despite standard pharmacological therapy, were engaged with well by patients and can be delivered effectively as a self-guided intervention. The intervention should now be transferred to an internet-based platform and implementation studies performed. Interventions for younger patients should be developed and trialled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88318003. FUNDING: This project was primarily funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Additional financial support was received from Comprehensive Local Research Networks.

A qualitative study of GP, nurse and practice manager views on using targeted case-finding to identify patients with COPD in primary care.

'Finding the missing millions' with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease became part of the Department of Health strategy for England in 2010. Targeted case-finding within primary care is one potential pro-active strategy, but currently little is known about the views of healthcare professionals on this approach. In this study, 36 healthcare professionals (12 GPs, 14 nurses, and 10 practice managers) from 34 UK practices participated in semi-structured telephone interviews about targeted case-finding. Interviews followed an interview guide, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using 'Framework Approach'. Most of those interviewed practiced opportunistic case-finding. The main perceived barriers to wider case-finding programmes were the resource implications associated with running such programmes and identifying more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Financial incentives, support from specialist clinicians, and comprehensive guidance were viewed as facilitators. While targeted case-finding is conceptually accepted by primary care staff, scepticism surrounding (1) the value of identifying those with mild disease and (2) the availability of effective targeted case-finding methods, may lead some to favour an opportunistic approach. Key concerns were a lack of unequivocal evidence for the relative benefits vs. disadvantages of diagnosing patients earlier, and resource constraints in an already over-burdened system. Barriers to practical implementation of case-finding studies may be addressed with financial, human and educational resources, such as additional staff to undertake searches and perform spirometry tests, and practical and educational support from specialist teams. CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE: SUPPORT NEEDED TO IDENTIFY THOSE UNDIAGNOSED: Additional staff and resources would facilitate targeted searches for patients showing symptoms of early-stage chronic lung disease. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) costs the UK economy billions of pounds each year, yet disparate symptoms mean patients aren't always diagnosed in the early, treatable stages of the disease. Recent guidelines suggest introducing 'targeted case-finding', where symptomatic patients with known risk factors are identified and approached for testing by doctors. Rachael Summers and colleagues at the University of Southampton analyzed the opinions of healthcare professionals on implementing targeted case-finding in primary care. While most of the 36 professionals interviewed agreed that diagnosing COPD earlier had clear benefits, concerns were raised regarding negative patient responses and increased stress for patients, alongside the added strain on already stretched resources. Employing independent staff and enhancing resources may facilitate such a program.

Patients' perceptions of the potential of breathing training for asthma: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Poor symptom control is common in asthma. Breathing training exercises may be an effective adjunct to medication; it is therefore important to understand facilitators and barriers to uptake of breathing training exercises. AIMS: To gain insight into patients' perceptions of breathing training exercises designed to help control asthma symptoms. METHODS: Semi-structured think-aloud interviews were conducted with 29 people with asthma about their views of a booklet on breathing training exercises. RESULTS: Thematic analysis showed breathing training exercises were seen as acceptable in principle because they were viewed as nonpharmacological, holistic, unobtrusive, and likely to increase patient confidence in managing symptoms. Anticipated disadvantages included the time required and perceived irrelevance for those with well-controlled asthma. These views were influenced by prior experience of changing breathing, wanting to self-manage asthma, negative views of medication, and perceived asthma control/severity. Anticipated barriers to carrying out the exercises included difficulties with nose breathing, remembering to do them, and persevering with them. Anticipated facilitators included monitoring tools and social support. CONCLUSIONS: The idea of breathing training was viewed positively as an acceptable non-pharmacological treatment that patients can do discreetly to help them breathe more easily and reduce their reliance on medication. Uptake of breathing training may be greater among those who perceive their asthma as severe and/or have negative views of medication. To enhance uptake, it might be helpful to present breathing training exercises as holistic skills that can also benefit those with mild symptoms.