Research AppraisalRandomised Controlled Trial

A randomized controlled trial of adjunctive speleotherapy in asthma, COPD and long COVID

Scientific reportsSchwarz, Joachim, Eicke, Madelaine, Schwedler, Nina et al.22 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

55CEBM
Evidence: WeakRandomised Controlled Trial

PICO Framework

P — PopulationAdults with asthma (n=107), COPD (n=59), or Long COVID (n=42) on standard background therapy across 9 centers in Germany, Austria, and Italy
I — Intervention3-week speleotherapy course (6 sessions, 2 hours/week) plus standard therapy
C — ComparatorStandard therapy alone (control group)
O — OutcomesPrimary: FeNO (airway inflammation). Secondary: lung function (FVC, FEV₁, PEF), respiratory muscle strength (MIP, MEP), patient-reported outcomes (ACT, AQLQ, CAT, SGRQ, NQ, FAS), CO₂ levels

Bottom Line

This multicenter RCT of 208 patients found that 3-week speleotherapy courses failed to improve the primary endpoint of airway inflammation (FeNO) in asthma patients. However, patient-reported outcomes showed statistically significant improvements across disease groups, including asthma control, quality of life, and dysfunctional breathing patterns. Lung function improvements were statistically significant but modest and of questionable clinical relevance. The study's validity is limited by inherent lack of blinding, insufficient methodological details, and mixed results where objective measures largely failed to improve while subjective measures showed benefit. The intervention's applicability to Australian practice is severely limited by the absence of speleotherapy infrastructure and unclear cost-effectiveness. While the intervention appears safe, the evidence suggests speleotherapy may primarily influence breathing patterns and patient perception rather than providing meaningful physiological improvements in chronic respiratory diseases.

Evidence: Weak

Key Findings

  • P Value: Various: ACT p<0.001, AQLQ p=0.005, CAT p=0.036, respiratory muscle strength MIP p=0.002, MEP p=0.018

  • Effect Size: Not reported in abstract

  • Primary Outcome: FeNO showed no significant improvement in asthma patients

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not calculable from available data

  • Confidence Interval: Not reported

Clinical Application

Limited feasibility in Australia due to lack of established speleotherapy facilities; intervention requires specialized underground environments Not directly applicable to Australian healthcare system; no PBS coverage for speleotherapy; would require significant infrastructure development and regulatory approval Adults with stable asthma, COPD, or Long COVID on standard therapy seeking adjunctive non-pharmacological interventions

Abstract

Speleotherapy (underground climate therapy) is a non-pharmacological intervention for chronic respiratory diseases. This randomized controlled trial investigated whether a 3-week speleotherapy course (6 sessions, 2 h/week) improves respiratory outcomes in patients on standard background therapy with asthma, COPD, or Long COVID, and whether it affects blood CO2 levels. The control group did not receive speleotherapy but continued their standard therapy. A total of 208 patients (asthma: n = 107; COPD: n = 59; Long COVID: n = 42) were enrolled across nine centers in Germany, Austria, and Italy. Assessments were conducted pre-intervention (T1), post-intervention (T2), and at 3-month follow-up (T3). Outcome measures included airway inflammation (FeNO), pulmonary function parameters (FVC% predicted values, FEV₁% predicted values, FEV₁/FVC, PEF% predicted values), and respiratory muscle strength (MIP and MEP in absolute values). In addition the following validated questionnaires were administered: Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Nijmegen Questionnaire (NQ), and Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS), along with the Long COVID questionnaire from the Median Clinic Group. CO2 levels were assessed via capillary blood (SpCO2) and end-tidal CO2 (PetCO2). Between-group comparisons used the Mann-Whitney U test; within-group changes were assessed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Bonferroni-Holm corrected). In patients with asthma, the predefined primary endpoint (FeNO) showed no significant improvement. In contrast, patient-reported outcomes improved significantly, with clinically relevant gains in asthma control (ACT: p < 0.001) and asthma-related quality of life (total AQLQ: p = 0.005). Lung function parameters showed statistically significant but modest improvements at T2 (FVC: p = 0.011; PEF: p = 0.010; FEV₁ in participants < 70 years: p = 0.035). In patients with COPD, symptom burden improved according to CAT scores (p = 0.036), while no improvements in lung function were observed. Patients with Long COVID reported significant improvements in dysfunctional breathing (NQ: T2: p = 0.014), dyspnea (T2: p = 0.026; T3: p = 0.001), and "problems with stair climbing/muscle exertion" (T2: p = 0.042), as well as improvements in anxiety and sleep-related symptoms (T2: p = 0.021). No improvements in lung function were observed in this group. In the total cohort, the intervention group showed statistically significant improvements compared to controls in respiratory muscle strength (MIP: p = 0.002; MEP: p = 0.018) and dysfunctional breathing (NQ scores at T2: p = 0.007; T3: p = 0.017). In CO₂-rich speleotherapy centers, both SpCO₂ (p = 0.026) and PetCO₂ (p < 0.001) increased at T2. While speleotherapy did not improve FeNO, it was associated with clinically relevant improvements in patient-reported outcomes across disease groups. Changes in lung function and respiratory muscle strength were statistically significant but modest and should be interpreted with caution. Overall, speleotherapy may have direct effects on the airways and breathing regulation, with more consistent evidence for improvements in breathing patterns than for direct effects on the airways.Trial registration: DRKS00033365 (retrospectively registered).

Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service