Visiting a sauna: does inhaling hot dry air reduce common cold symptoms? A randomised controlled trial

Daniel Pach, Bettina Knöchel, Rainer Lüdtke, Katja Wruck, Stefan N Willich, Claudia M Witt, Daniel Pach, Bettina Knöchel, Rainer Lüdtke, Katja Wruck, Stefan N Willich, Claudia M Witt

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of applying hot dry air versus dry air at room temperature to the throat of patients with a newly acquired common cold using a symptom severity score.

Design, setting and participants: A randomised single-blind controlled trial with a treatment duration of 3 days and a follow-up period of 4 days was conducted at a sauna in Berlin, Germany. Between November 2007 and March 2008 and between September 2008 and April 2009, 157 patients with symptoms of the common cold were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n=80) and a control group (n=77).

Interventions: Participants in the intervention group inhaled hot dry air within a hot sauna, dressed in a winter coat, whereas participants in the control group inhaled dry air at room temperature within a hot sauna, also dressed in a winter coat.

Main outcome measures: Area under the curve (AUC) summarising symptom severity over time (Days 2, 3, 5 and 7), symptom severity scores for individual days, intake of medication for the common cold and general ill feeling.

Results: No significant difference between groups was observed for AUC representing symptom severity over time (intervention group mean, 31.2 [SEM, 1.8]; control group mean, 35.1 [SEM, 2.3]; group difference, -3.9 [95% CI, -9.7 to 1.9]; P=0.19). However, significant differences between groups were found for medication use on Day 1 (P=0.01), symptom severity score on Day 2 (P=0.04), and participants' ratings of the effectiveness of the therapy on Day 7 (P=0.03).

Conclusion: Inhaling hot air while in a sauna has no significant impact on overall symptom severity of the common cold.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00552981.

Figures

Box 1
Box 1
Sauna set‐up used for control and intervention groups To have a comparable setting and enable maximum blinding in both groups, we used a face mask to cover the mouth and nose that was attached to a tube (80 cm long), similar to masks used for anaesthesia. The tube was lead through a screen, and the other end of the tube was either placed behind the screen (to allow inhalation of sauna air) or lead through the wall of the sauna (to allow inhalation of ambient air). After every application, the mask and tube were disinfected.
Box 2
Box 2
Recruitment, treatment and follow‐up of patients with a newly acquired common cold, November 2007 – March 2008 and September 2008 – April 2009
Box 5
Box 5
Changes in adjusted symptom severity scores and general ill feeling scores over time* B = baseline (on Day 1, before randomisation).
* Data were reported by participants and adjusted using a generalised estimation equation model.

References

    1. Heikkinen T, Jarvinen A. The common cold. Lancet 2003; 361: 51–59. 12517470.
    1. Papadopoulos NG, Sanderson G, Hunter J, Johnston SL. Rhinoviruses replicate effectively at lower airway temperatures. J Med Virol 1999; 58: 100–104. 10223554.
    1. Roxas M, Jurenka J. Colds and influenza: a review of diagnosis and conventional, botanical, and nutritional considerations. Altern Med Rev 2007; 12: 25–48. 17397266.
    1. Arroll B. Non‐antibiotic treatments for upper‐respiratory tract infections (common cold). Respir Med 2005; 99: 1477–1484. 16291073.
    1. Saketkhoo K, Januszkiewicz A, Sackner MA. Effects of drinking hot water, cold water, and chicken soup on nasal mucus velocity and nasal airflow resistance. Chest 1978; 74: 408–410. 359266.
    1. Singh M. Heated, humidified air for the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (3): CD001728. 16855975.
    1. Tyrrell D, Barrow I, Arthur J. Local hyperthermia benefits natural and experimental common colds. BMJ 1989; 298: 1280–1283. 2500196.
    1. Conti C, De MA, Mastromarino P, et al. Antiviral effect of hyperthermic treatment in rhinovirus infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 822–829. 10103186.
    1. Lwoff A. Death and transfiguration of a problem. Bacteriol Rev 1969; 33: 390–403. 4313270.
    1. Prasad AS, Fitzgerald JT, Bao B, et al. Duration of symptoms and plasma cytokine levels in patients with the common cold treated with zinc acetate. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 245–252. 10929163.
    1. Prasad AS, Beck FW, Bao B, et al. Duration and severity of symptoms and levels of plasma interleukin‐1 receptor antagonist, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor, and adhesion molecules in patients with common cold treated with zinc acetate. J Infect Dis 2008; 197: 795–802. 18279051.
    1. Gwaltney JM Jr, Hendley JO, Simon G, Jordan WS Jr. Rhinovirus infections in an industrial population. II . Characteristics of illness and antibody response. JAMA 1967; 202: 494–500. 4293015.
    1. Gwaltney JM Jr, Hendley JO, Patrie JT. Symptom severity patterns in experimental common colds and their usefulness in timing onset of illness in natural colds. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36: 714–723. 12627355.
    1. Di Blasi Z, Kleijnen J. Context effects. Powerful therapies or methodological bias? Eval Health Prof 2003; 26: 166–179. 12789710.
    1. Kaptchuk TJ. Powerful placebo: the dark side of the randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1998; 351: 1722–1725. 9734904.
    1. Brinkhaus B, Pach D, Lüdtke R, Willich SN. Who controls the placebo? Introducing a placebo quality checklist for pharmacological trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2008; 29: 149–156. 17669693.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit