BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether associations between respiratory symptoms and indoor mould are causal. A randomised controlled trial was conducted to see whether asthma improves when indoor mould is removed. METHODS:Houses of patients with asthma were randomly allocated into two groups. In one group, indoor mould was removed, fungicide was applied and a fan was installed in the loft. In the control group, intervention was delayed for 12 months. Questionnaires were administered and peak expiratory flow rate was measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS:Eighty-one houses were allocated to the intervention group and 83 to the control group; 95 participants in 68 intervention houses and 87 in 63 control houses supplied follow-up information. Peak expiratory flow rate variability declined in both groups, with no significant differences between them. At 6 months, significantly more of the intervention group showed a net improvement in wheeze affecting activities (difference between groups 25%, 95% CI 3% to 47%; p = 0.028), perceived improvement of breathing (52%, 95% CI 30% to 74%; p<0.0001) and perceived reduction in medication (59%, 95% CI 35% to 81%; p<0.0001). By 12 months the intervention group showed significantly greater reductions than the controls in preventer and reliever use, and more improvement in rhinitis (24%, 95% CI 9% to 39%; p = 0.001) and rhinoconjunctivitis (20%, 95% CI 5% to 36%; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no objective evidence of benefit, symptoms of asthma and rhinitis improved and medication use declined following removal of indoor mould. It is unlikely that this was entirely a placebo effect.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether associations between respiratory symptoms and indoor mould are causal. A randomised controlled trial was conducted to see whether asthma improves when indoor mould is removed. METHODS: Houses of patients with asthma were randomly allocated into two groups. In one group, indoor mould was removed, fungicide was applied and a fan was installed in the loft. In the control group, intervention was delayed for 12 months. Questionnaires were administered and peak expiratory flow rate was measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: Eighty-one houses were allocated to the intervention group and 83 to the control group; 95 participants in 68 intervention houses and 87 in 63 control houses supplied follow-up information. Peak expiratory flow rate variability declined in both groups, with no significant differences between them. At 6 months, significantly more of the intervention group showed a net improvement in wheeze affecting activities (difference between groups 25%, 95% CI 3% to 47%; p = 0.028), perceived improvement of breathing (52%, 95% CI 30% to 74%; p<0.0001) and perceived reduction in medication (59%, 95% CI 35% to 81%; p<0.0001). By 12 months the intervention group showed significantly greater reductions than the controls in preventer and reliever use, and more improvement in rhinitis (24%, 95% CI 9% to 39%; p = 0.001) and rhinoconjunctivitis (20%, 95% CI 5% to 36%; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no objective evidence of benefit, symptoms of asthma and rhinitis improved and medication use declined following removal of indoor mould. It is unlikely that this was entirely a placebo effect.
Authors: A P Verhoeff; J H van Wijnen; E S van Reenen-Hoekstra; R A Samson; R T van Strien; B Brunekreef Journal: Allergy Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: S Dharmage; M Bailey; J Raven; K Abeyawickrama; D Cao; D Guest; J Rolland; A Forbes; F Thien; M Abramson; E H Walters Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.018
Authors: Louise Woodfine; Richard D Neal; Nigel Bruce; Rhiannon T Edwards; Pat Linck; Linda Mullock; Nick Nelhans; Diana Pasterfield; Daphne Russell; Ian Russell Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: James Krieger; David E Jacobs; Peter J Ashley; Andrea Baeder; Ginger L Chew; Dorr Dearborn; H Patricia Hynes; J David Miller; Rebecca Morley; Felicia Rabito; Darryl C Zeldin Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2010 Sep-Oct