Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial

Objective To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of booklet based vestibular rehabilitation with and without telephone support for chronic dizziness, compared with routine care. Design Single blind, parallel group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Setting 35 general practices across southern England between October 2008 and January 2011. Participants Patients aged 18 years or over with chronic dizziness (mean duration >five years) not attributable to non-vestibular causes (confirmed by general practitioner) and that could be aggravated by head movement (confirmed by patient). Interventions Participants randomly allocated to receive routine medical care, booklet based vestibular rehabilitation only, or booklet based vestibular rehabilitation with telephone support. For the booklet approach, participants received self management booklets providing comprehensive advice on undertaking vestibular rehabilitation exercises at home daily for up to 12 weeks and using cognitive behavioural techniques to promote positive beliefs and treatment adherence. Participants receiving telephone support were offered up to three brief sessions of structured support from a vestibular therapist. Main outcome measures Vertigo symptom scale-short form and total healthcare costs related to dizziness per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Results Of 337 randomised participants, 276 (82%) completed all clinical measures at the primary endpoint, 12 weeks, and 263 (78%) at one year follow-up. We analysed clinical effectiveness by intention to treat, using analysis of covariance to compare groups after intervention, controlling for baseline symptom scores. At 12 weeks, scores on the vertigo symptom scale in the telephone support group did not differ significantly from those in the routine care group (adjusted mean difference −1.79 (95% confidence interval −3.69 tο 0.11), P=0.064). At one year, both intervention groups improved significantly relative to routine care (telephone support −2.52 (−4.52 to −0.51), P=0.014; booklet only −2.43 (−4.27 to −0.60), P=0.010). Analysis of cost effectiveness acceptability curves showed that both interventions were highly cost effective; at very low QALY values, the booklet only approach was most likely to be cost effective, but the approach with additional telephone support was most likely to be cost effective at QALY values more than £1200 (€1488; $1932). Using the booklet approach with telephone support, five (three to 12) patients would need to be treated for one patient to report subjective improvement at one year. Conclusions Booklet based vestibular rehabilitation for chronic dizziness is a simple and cost effective means of improving patient reported outcomes in primary care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00732797.

Summary 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.

Asthma is a heterogeneous, complex disease with clinical phenotypes that incorporate persistent symptoms and acute exacerbations. It affects many millions of Europeans throughout their education and working lives and puts a heavy cost on European productivity. There is a wide spectrum of disease severity and control. Therapeutic advances have been slow despite greater understanding of basic mechanisms and the lack of satisfactory preventative and disease modifying management for asthma constitutes a significant unmet clinical need. Preventing, treating and ultimately curing asthma requires co-ordinated research and innovation across Europe. The European Asthma Research and Innovation Partnership (EARIP) is an FP7-funded programme which has taken a co-ordinated and integrated approach to analysing the future of asthma research and development. This report aims to identify the mechanistic areas in which investment is required to bring about significant improvements in asthma outcomes.