Active Albuterol or Placebo, Sham Acupuncture, or No Intervention in Asthma
Author
Wechsler, Michael E.
Boyd, Ingrid O.E.
Dutile, Stefanie
Marigowda, Gautham
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1103319Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Wechsler, Michael E., John Kelley, Ingrid O.E. Boyd, Stefanie Dutile, Gautham Marigowda, Irving Kirsch, Elliot Israel et al. "Active Albuterol or Placebo, Sham Acupuncture, or No Intervention in Asthma." New England Journal of Medicine 365, no. 2 (2011): 119-126. DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1103319Abstract
BACKGROUNDIn prospective experimental studies in patients with asthma, it is difficult to determine whether responses to placebo differ from the natural course of physiological changes that occur without any intervention. We compared the effects of a bronchodilator, two placebo interventions, and no intervention on outcomes in patients with asthma.
METHODS
In a double-blind, crossover pilot study, we randomly assigned 46 patients with asthma to active treatment with an albuterol inhaler, a placebo inhaler, sham acupuncture, or no intervention. Using a block design, we administered one each of these four interventions in random order during four sequential visits (3 to 7 days apart); this procedure was repeated in two more blocks of visits (for a total of 12 visits by each patient). At each visit, spirometry was performed repeatedly over a period of 2 hours. Maximum forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was measured, and patients’ self-reported improvement ratings were recorded.
RESULTS
Among the 39 patients who completed the study, albuterol resulted in a 20% increase in FEV1, as compared with approximately 7% with each of the other three interventions (P<0.001). However, patients’ reports of improvement after the intervention did not differ significantly for the albuterol inhaler (50% improvement), placebo inhaler (45%), or sham acupuncture (46%), but the subjective improvement with all three of these interventions was significantly greater than that with the no-intervention control (21%) (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Although albuterol, but not the two placebo interventions, improved FEV1 in these patients with asthma, albuterol provided no incremental benefit with respect to the self-reported outcomes. Placebo effects can be clinically meaningful and can rival the effects of active medication in patients with asthma. However, from a clinical-management and research-design perspective, patient self-reports can be unreliable. An assessment of untreated responses in asthma may be essential in evaluating patient-reported outcomes.
Other Sources
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154208/Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37372796
Collections
- HMS Scholarly Articles [17922]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)