Evaluation of the effect of camel milk in comparison with standard medicinal therapy on asthma patients: a parallel clinical trial

Electronic Physician Pub Date : 2019-02-25 DOI:10.19082/7423
Mohammad Ravaghi, M. Yousefi, D. Attaran, S. Zibaee, R. Salari, Maliheh Dadgar Moghaddam, F. Azad, S. M. Hosseini
{"title":"Evaluation of the effect of camel milk in comparison with standard medicinal therapy on asthma patients: a parallel clinical trial","authors":"Mohammad Ravaghi, M. Yousefi, D. Attaran, S. Zibaee, R. Salari, Maliheh Dadgar Moghaddam, F. Azad, S. M. Hosseini","doi":"10.19082/7423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in the world by which more than 300 million people are affected. In conventional medicine for asthma treatment, more emphasis is on drug therapy, which has complications and contraindications as well as high costs, so we are investigating to identify the effect of camel’s milk on the symptoms of patients with asthma. Objective: To examine the effects of camel milk in comparison with standard medicinal therapy on asthma patients. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 46 patients with asthma. The study was conducted in Ghaem Hospital lung clinic in Mashhad, Iran, from May 2016 to November 2017. The participants were randomly divided into control and intervention groups (n, 23 per group) and were assessed both pretreatment and post treatment (before, and three months after treatment). Patients with asthma based on clinical and spirometric criteria were included in the study and divided into two groups of control and intervention. Twenty-three patients with asthma were entered into each group. The control group received routine treatments (steroid and β-agonist inhalation) and the intervention group, which received the usual treatments, plus pasteurized camel milk. Camel milk was administered two times a day (8 am and 8 pm 250 ml without additives). Data were collected using a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) assessment test (CAT) questionnaire score and spirometry. The results were analyzed and compared in SPSS version 11.5, using paired t-test, Chi-Square test, and independent sample t-test. The significance level was set at 0.05. http://www.ephysician.ir Page 7424 Results: In this study, changes in the mean of forced expiratory volume during one second (FEV1) measurement and FEV1 percent and CAT questionnaire score in both groups, before and after treatment, were significant. But the mean of FEV1 (measurement and percent) in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group. The mean of FEV1 percent and FEV1 measurement in the intervention and the control groups were p<0.001, p=0.002, p=0.001 and p=0.049 respectively, while the mean of CAT questionnaire scores were not significantly different between two groups (p<0.001, p<0.001 respectively). In addition, the mean of FEV1 percent and CAT questionnaire score difference in the intervention group were significantly higher than in the control group (p=0.001, p<0.001 respectively), but the mean of FEV1 measurement differences between the intervention and the control group were not significant (p=0.05). Conclusion: In our study, we found that camel milk, with the standard asthma treatment, would be very helpful. However, there is a need for further studies with a larger sample size on the effect of this nutrient. Clinical Trial Registration: This study was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.irct.ir) with the registration code IRCT2016102930541N1. Funding: This study was supported by Mashhad University of Medical Sciences Research Council, Mashhad, Iran (Ref: 941287). The authors have no conflicts of interest.","PeriodicalId":11603,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Physician","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Physician","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19082/7423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in the world by which more than 300 million people are affected. In conventional medicine for asthma treatment, more emphasis is on drug therapy, which has complications and contraindications as well as high costs, so we are investigating to identify the effect of camel’s milk on the symptoms of patients with asthma. Objective: To examine the effects of camel milk in comparison with standard medicinal therapy on asthma patients. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 46 patients with asthma. The study was conducted in Ghaem Hospital lung clinic in Mashhad, Iran, from May 2016 to November 2017. The participants were randomly divided into control and intervention groups (n, 23 per group) and were assessed both pretreatment and post treatment (before, and three months after treatment). Patients with asthma based on clinical and spirometric criteria were included in the study and divided into two groups of control and intervention. Twenty-three patients with asthma were entered into each group. The control group received routine treatments (steroid and β-agonist inhalation) and the intervention group, which received the usual treatments, plus pasteurized camel milk. Camel milk was administered two times a day (8 am and 8 pm 250 ml without additives). Data were collected using a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) assessment test (CAT) questionnaire score and spirometry. The results were analyzed and compared in SPSS version 11.5, using paired t-test, Chi-Square test, and independent sample t-test. The significance level was set at 0.05. http://www.ephysician.ir Page 7424 Results: In this study, changes in the mean of forced expiratory volume during one second (FEV1) measurement and FEV1 percent and CAT questionnaire score in both groups, before and after treatment, were significant. But the mean of FEV1 (measurement and percent) in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group. The mean of FEV1 percent and FEV1 measurement in the intervention and the control groups were p<0.001, p=0.002, p=0.001 and p=0.049 respectively, while the mean of CAT questionnaire scores were not significantly different between two groups (p<0.001, p<0.001 respectively). In addition, the mean of FEV1 percent and CAT questionnaire score difference in the intervention group were significantly higher than in the control group (p=0.001, p<0.001 respectively), but the mean of FEV1 measurement differences between the intervention and the control group were not significant (p=0.05). Conclusion: In our study, we found that camel milk, with the standard asthma treatment, would be very helpful. However, there is a need for further studies with a larger sample size on the effect of this nutrient. Clinical Trial Registration: This study was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.irct.ir) with the registration code IRCT2016102930541N1. Funding: This study was supported by Mashhad University of Medical Sciences Research Council, Mashhad, Iran (Ref: 941287). The authors have no conflicts of interest.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骆驼奶与标准药物治疗哮喘的疗效比较:一项平行临床试验
背景:哮喘是世界上最常见的慢性疾病之一,有超过3亿人受到影响。传统医学治疗哮喘多以药物治疗为主,存在并发症和禁忌症,且费用较高,因此我们正在研究骆驼奶对哮喘患者症状的影响。目的:比较骆驼奶与标准药物治疗对哮喘患者的疗效。方法:对46例哮喘患者进行随机临床试验。该研究于2016年5月至2017年11月在伊朗马什哈德的Ghaem医院肺部诊所进行。参与者被随机分为对照组和干预组(每组23人),并在治疗前和治疗后(治疗前和治疗后3个月)进行评估。将符合临床和肺活量测定标准的哮喘患者纳入研究,分为对照组和干预组。每组23例哮喘患者。对照组给予常规治疗(类固醇和β激动剂吸入),干预组给予常规治疗加巴氏骆驼奶。骆驼奶每天两次(上午8点和晚上8点250毫升,不含添加剂)。使用慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)评估测试(CAT)问卷评分和肺活量测定法收集数据。结果在SPSS 11.5版中进行分析和比较,采用配对t检验、卡方检验和独立样本t检验。显著性水平设为0.05。http://www.ephysician.ir Page 7424结果:在本研究中,两组患者在治疗前后的一秒钟用力呼气量(FEV1)测量平均值、fev1%和CAT问卷评分的变化均具有统计学意义。干预组的FEV1平均值(测量值和百分比)明显高于对照组。干预组和对照组FEV1的平均值和FEV1测量值分别为p<0.001、p=0.002、p=0.001和p=0.049,而CAT问卷得分的平均值两组间差异无统计学意义(p<0.001、p<0.001)。此外,干预组FEV1的平均值和CAT问卷评分差异均显著高于对照组(p=0.001, p<0.001),但干预组与对照组FEV1测量的平均值差异无统计学意义(p=0.05)。结论:在我们的研究中,我们发现骆驼奶与标准的哮喘治疗有很大的帮助。然而,需要对这种营养物质的影响进行更大样本量的进一步研究。临床试验注册:本研究在伊朗临床试验注册中心(http://www.irct.ir)注册,注册代码为IRCT2016102930541N1。资助:本研究由伊朗马什哈德医学科学大学研究理事会支持(参考文献:941287)。作者没有利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Effect of an Educational Leaflet on Parents' Knowledge, Performance, and Self-Assessment Scores Regarding Oral Health Elements, with a Special Focus on Fluoride A Case of Posterior Scleritis with Negative Rheumatoid Factor and Positive Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibody Status: Case Report Health risks from desalinated seawater used for human consumption: The case of Honaine Plant (Northwest Algeria) Analyzing the Concepts of “Good Death” from the Perspective of Nursing: A systematic review and concept analysis E-Health Literacy and Factors Affecting it in Patients Admitted to a University Hospital in Iran
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1