Reduced nocturnal asthma by improved nasal breathing

The Recumbent Position Affects Nasal Resistance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Nasal diseases are among the main motives for the early discontinuation of continuous positive airway pressure therapy and for long-term therapeutic compliance with mandibular advancement device. Although our clinical experience leads us to the belief that recumbency impacts nasal airflow in some patient populations, there is no consensus regarding the magnitude of this effect and the specific group of patients who are the most affected by this condition. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of the recumbent position on nasal resistance and nasal airflow.

REVIEW METHODS

PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, and SciELO databases were checked for relevant studies by two members of the YO-IFOS study group. The two authors extracted the data. The main outcome was expressed as the difference between nasal resistance and nasal airflow before and after recumbency.

RESULTS

Nine studies with a total population of 291 individuals were included in the meta-analysis for nasal resistance after recumbency. We found a statistically significant difference in nasal airway resistance of -0.18 Pa sec/cm³ as compared to before and after recumbency through rhinomanometry (RMM) analysis. A subgroup analysis revealed a variation of -0.20 Pa sec/cm³ for patients with snoring or sleep apnea and - 0.10 Pa sec/cm³ for healthy individuals. Regarding nasal airflow measured with RMM, three studies (n = 32) in asymptomatic controls revealed a statistically significant difference of 47.33 ml/sec.

CONCLUSIONS

Recumbency increases nasal resistance and diminishes nasal airflow. This finding is of utmost importance in snorers and sleep apnea patients. Laryngoscope, 2021.

Asthma - A Disease of How We Breathe: Role of Breathing Exercises and Pranayam

To describe the role of breathing exercises or yoga and/or pranayama in the management of childhood asthma. We conducted an updated literature search and retrieved relevant literature on the role of breathing exercises or yoga and/or pranayama in the management of childhood asthma. We found that the breathing exercises or yoga and/or pranayama are generally multi-component packaged interventions, and are described as follows: Papworth technique, Buteyko technique, Yoga and/or Pranayam. These techniques primarily modify the pattern of breathing to reduce hyperventilation resulting in normalisation of CO2 level, reduction of bronchospasm and resulting breathlessness. In addition they also change the behaviour, decrease anxiety, improve immunological parameters, and improve endurance of the respiratory muscles that may ultimately help asthmatic children. We found 10 clinical trials conducted in children with asthma of varying severity, and found to benefit children with chronic (mild and moderate) and uncontrolled asthma, but not acute severe asthma. Breathing exercises or yoga and/or pranayama may benefit children with chronic (mild and moderate) and uncontrolled asthma, but not acute severe asthma. Before these techniques can be incorporated into the standard care of asthmatic children, important outcomes like quality of life, medication use, and patient reported outcomes need to be evaluated in future clinical trials.

Mouth breathing, another risk factor for asthma: the Nagahama Study

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis, a known risk factor for asthma onset, often accompanies mouth breathing. Mouth breathing may bypass the protective function of the nose and is anecdotally considered to increase asthma morbidity. However, there is no epidemiological evidence that mouth breathing is independently associated with asthma morbidity and sensitization to allergens. In this study, we aimed to clarify the association between mouth breathing and asthma morbidity and allergic/eosinophilic inflammation, while considering the effect of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This community-based cohort study, the Nagahama Study, contained a self-reporting questionnaire on mouth breathing and medical history, blood tests, and pulmonary function testing. We enrolled 9804 general citizens of Nagahama City in the Shiga Prefecture, Japan.

RESULTS

Mouth breathing was reported by 17% of the population and was independently associated with asthma morbidity. The odds ratio for asthma morbidity was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.27-2.62) and 2.20 (95% CI, 1.72-2.80) in subjects with mouth breathing alone and allergic rhinitis alone, which additively increased to 4.09 (95% CI, 3.01-5.52) when mouth breathing and allergic rhinitis coexisted. Mouth breathing in nonasthmatics was a risk for house dust mite sensitization, higher blood eosinophil counts, and lower pulmonary function after adjusting for allergic rhinitis.

CONCLUSION

Mouth breathing may increase asthma morbidity, potentially through increased sensitization to inhaled allergens, which highlights the risk of mouth-bypass breathing in the 'one airway, one disease' concept. The risk of mouth breathing should be well recognized in subjects with allergic rhinitis and in the general population.

Breathing exercises for asthma

Educational aims

To summarise the evidence of the role of breathing control approaches in the management of asthma

To provide information on the content of evidence-based breathing exercises programmes

Summary

Asthma is a complex, multi-dimensional condition that affects patients in many ways. Having asthma is inherently stressful and psychological problems are common and associated with poor asthma outcomes. Although most patients in clinical trials can achieve high levels of control with optimised pharmacotherapy, in “real-life” practice, poor control is common, with over-reliance on rescue bronchodilator medication and ongoing symptoms and quality-of-life impairment. Many patients are interested in non-pharmacological treatments to improve asthma control, particularly breathing control exercises but, until recently, the evidence base has been inadequate. The place of breathing exercises has been controversial, partly because some proponents have made exaggerated, implausible claims of effectiveness. Recent evidence, however, has resulted in endorsement of breathing exercises as add-on treatment in asthma in systematic reviews and guidelines.

This review summarises the current evidence of effectiveness of breathing exercises programmes as an adjuvant treatment to pharmacological strategies for people with asthma. The types of breathing training programmes used and the content of effective programmes are discussed. We conclude that patients whose asthma continues to cause symptoms and quality-of-life impairment, despite adequate pharmacological treatment, or who have high bronchodilator use, should be offered access to an effective breathing training programme as a part of holistic, integrated asthma care.

Key points

Asthma is frequently poorly controlled despite effective modern medication

Psychological factors can be as important as physiological ones in affecting symptom perception and disease impact

Breathing exercises can improve patient-reported outcomes and psychological state

Breathing exercises should be offered to all asthma patients with symptoms or impaired quality of life despite standard treatment

Effect of mouth taping at night on asthma control--a randomised single-blind crossover study

BACKGROUND

Nose breathing ensures that inspired air is warm, filtered and moist and may therefore benefit patients with asthma. It features in some complementary approaches to treat asthma and is encouraged at night in the Buteyko technique by the use of mouth taping. In this pragmatic study we sought to determine whether taping the mouth at night has any effect on asthma control compared with usual breathing in patients with symptomatic asthma, since if it was effective it would be a simple intervention to implement.

METHODS

This was a randomised, single-blind, crossover study of participants (n=51) with symptomatic asthma (mean FEV(1) 86% predicted). A 4-week period of usual breathing at night was followed by use of mouth taping with microporous tape, as in the Buteyko technique, or vice versa, with a 2-week run-in period and a minimum 2-week washout period of usual breathing between 'treatments'. Primary outcomes were morning peak expiratory flow and symptom scores (Asthma Control Diary). Outcomes were measured and analysed without knowledge of treatment allocation.

RESULTS

Fifty participants completed the study and reported taping their mouth for a median 26 of 28 nights. Although 36 participants said mouth taping was very or fairly acceptable there were no differences between treatments for morning peak expiratory flow (mean difference -1l/min (95%CI, -9 to 7)) or symptoms scores (mean difference -0.12 (95%CI, -0.30 to 0.06)) nor for any secondary measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Taping the mouth at night had no effect on asthma control in patients with symptomatic asthma.

Asthma and rhinitis: comorbidities

The connection between asthma and rhinitis is not a new discovery. Significant progress has been made in understanding the relationship of these two conditions, however, and the implications of the asthma-rhinitis link make it increasingly important. Patients who have asthma and rhinitis tend to have more severe disease with higher treatment costs. Treatment of rhinitis may improve asthma control, and early treatment of allergies may prevent the development of asthma. This article more fully explores the epidemiologic, pathophysiologic, and clinical relationships between asthma and rhinitis.

The importance of improved nasal breathing: a review of the Nozovent nostril dilator

The Nozovent nostril dilator improves nasal breathing to the same degree as topical decongestants and reduces mouth dryness at night in 51% of nocturnal mouth breathers. It does not help every snorer but reduces the snoring heard by the sleeping partner in about 50%, improves the respiratory disturbance index significantly in 19% and gives less morning and daytime tiredness in 40% of snorers. The medium CPAP pressure can be significantly reduced with the dilator.

Perennial rhinitis in the under 4s: a difficult problem to treat safely and effectively? A comparison of intranasal fluticasone propionate and ketotifen in the treatment of 2-4-year-old children with perennial rhinitis

To compare the safety and efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) and oral ketotifen in children aged 2-4 years with perennial rhinitis. A randomized, multicentre, double-blind, double dummy, placebo-controlled study. Paediatric patients between the ages of 2-4 years with perennial rhinitis. Rhinitis symptoms score (parent-rated), clinical evaluation of symptoms (investigator-rated) and adverse event profiles during the treatment period. Patients treated with FPANS had a significant reduction in both the total night-time rhinitis symptom assessment for weeks 4-6 (p-value 0.036), and the total daytime rhinitis symptom score over the same period (p-value 0.049). Generally, except for nasal itching/rubbing over weeks 1-3, the patients taking FPANS had lower recorded symptom scores for all individual symptoms measured. Nasal blockage, in particular, was significantly reduced over the 4-6 week period (p-value 0.027). The overall investigator-rated clinical evaluation showed substantial improvement or improvement in nine of 12 of the children taking FPANS compared with four of 14 taking ketotifen. Finally, there were no reports of serious adverse events, the incidence of drug-related adverse events was low and there was no statistical difference between the groups. FPANS may be an appropriate treatment to control the symptoms of rhinitis in children between 2 and 4 years old.

Behavioral interventions in asthma. Breathing training

Breathing exercises are frequently recommended as an adjunctive treatment for asthma. A review of the current literature found little that is systematic documenting the benefits of these techniques in asthma patients. The physiological rationale of abdominal breathing in asthma is not clear, and adverse effects have been reported in chronic obstructive states. Theoretical analysis and empirical observations suggest positive effects of pursed-lip breathing and nasal breathing but clinical evidence is lacking. Modification of breathing patterns alone does not yield any significant benefit. There is limited evidence that inspiratory muscle training and hypoventilation training can help reduce medication consumption, in particular beta-adrenergic inhaler use. Breathing exercises do not seem to have any substantial effect on parameters of basal lung function. Additional research is needed on the psychological and physiological mechanisms of individual breathing techniques in asthma, differential effects in subgroups of asthma patients, and the generalization of training effects on daily life.

Upper airway defence mechanisms

The nose is the airconditioner of the airways. Because normal breathing is through the nose, most airborne particles are filtered there; hence the nasal mucosa is the first line of defence against particles in the air. Pathogenic and non-pathogenic antigens continuously bombard the epithelium of the nasal airway. These antigens are mainly removed non-immunologically by the first defence layer of the mucosa, consisting of mucus, ciliated epithelial cells, glycoproteins/lysosymes. If the antigen passes this defence layer, specific and non-specific immunological defence mechanisms exist. The non-specific defence consists of phagocyting cells like neutrophils and macrophages and the complement activation. The specific defence mechanism (resulting in a specific immunological reaction in relation to a certain antigen) is formed by the antibodies, mainly secretory IgA and to a lesser extent IgG and immunocompetent cells in the nasal mucosa. Activation of the specific defence mechanisms may lead to inflammation which can be allergic. The intense co-operation of mechanical, aspecific and specific immunological defence results in a tightly controlled balance between a proper defence against pathogens and hypersensitivity. Failures in these defence mechanisms, or their co-operation, results in upper respiratory infection and/or allergy.

Route of breathing in patients with asthma

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To measure route of breathing in chronic asthmatic patients during and after an acute severe exacerbation.

PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen asthmatic patients were studied during hospital admission for acute asthma and, in 9 patients, again when asymptomatic. Nine healthy subjects were also studied.

INTERVENTIONS

Spontaneous route of breathing was qualitatively assessed using oral and nasal thermistor probes, and was then quantified using a dual compartment face mask with attached pneumotachographs.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

All asthmatic patients had severe bronchoconstriction initially (FEV(1), 46 +/- 3% of predicted) that had resolved at follow-up (FEV(1), 91 +/- 6% of predicted). No healthy subject had evidence of bronchoconstriction (FEV(1), 102 +/- 5% of predicted). During acute asthma, 11 asthmatics were spontaneously breathing oronasally, as assessed using thermistor probes, while all 13 breathed oronasally via face mask. When assessed using thermistor probes, seven of nine asymptomatic asthmatic patients studied were breathing exclusively via the nose; however, all breathed oronasally via face mask. In contrast, while eight of nine healthy subjects were also breathing exclusively via the nose when assessed using thermistor probes, all breathed nasally only via face mask.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, when asymptomatic and at rest, asthmatic patients breathe exclusively via the nose. However, during acute exacerbations of asthma, these patients switch to oronasal breathing. Unlike healthy subjects, chronic asthmatic patients also switch to oronasal breathing when wearing a face mask, irrespective of the degree of bronchoconstriction. We speculate that asthmatics may have an increased tendency to switch to oral breathing, a factor that may contribute to the pathogenesis of their asthma.