Download PDFPDF

Inspiratory muscle training in COPD: can data finally beat emotion?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition
    • Michael I Polkey, co-author of the original MS Royal brompton & Harefield NHS Trust
    • Other Contributors:
      • Nicolino Ambrosino, co-author of the original MS

    To the Editor

    Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

    We thank Langer and colleagues for their interest in our editorial. In many ways the title they have chosen for their response confirms our thesis. ‘Absence of evidence’ may not be ‘Evidence of absence’ but it is ……………….. Absence of evidence . Our contention overall is that the relentless search for benefit despite the recently reported negative trials is driven by emotion rather than data.
    Whilst physiological arguments are of interest to physiologists, there remains no convincing evidence in our view either that respiratory muscle fatigue is present in patients with COPD, or that it contributes to exercise limitation. The various suggestions they make in the hope of eliciting a ‘positive result’ for IMT (e.g. changing outcome measure, patient selection) are credible research suggestions and we would not oppose interested investigators pursuing research in this arena, but this does not alter our contention that IMT has no place in current clinical practice.
    Clinically their argument is that IMT alone is beneficial in COPD. We think this argument is specious (irrespective of whether it is correct); pulmonary rehabilitation, in part thanks to the Leuven group, has one of the strongest evidence bases for any therapy in COPD. Therefore the idea that one might drop PR in order to do IMT instead is not one we believe should be taken into the clinical arena....

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Lessons from recent trials of adjunctive IMT in COPD and recommendations for further research: careful selection of candidates, controlling interventions and choosing the most adequate outcomes.
    • Daniel Langer, Assistant Professor, Physiotherapist KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences
    • Other Contributors:
      • Rik Gosselink, Full Professor, Physiotherapist
      • Ghislaine Gayan-Ramirez, Full professor

    We support the view of Drs. Polkey and Ambrosino that recommendations for clinical practice should not be based on either positive or negative preoccupation concerning the potential effectiveness of a treatment but rather on an impartial evaluation of the available data. In their editorial entitled ‘Inspiratory Muscle Training in COPD: can data finally beat emotion’ they unfortunately provide a fairly one-sided evaluation of this treatment, based on an incomplete and largely outdated review of the available evidence1. It is unfortunate that they neglect a major part of available data, which could contribute to a more balanced and fair discussion about this intervention. We therefore deemed it necessary to add this missing evidence along with our own interpretation of recent findings to the discussion.
    Complexity of studying add-on interventions to pulmonary rehabilitation
    Based on the results from three recent multicentre trials2-4, Polkey and Ambrosino exclude a role for adjunctive IMT in the rehabilitation of patients with COPD. As emphasized in a previous opinion piece by Dr. Ambrosino5, it is important to distinguish between studies that evaluate the effects of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) as a standalone intervention (i.e. in comparison to no intervention or a sham control intervention) and studies on the effects of IMT added to a pulmonary rehabilitation program (PRP).
    Concerning the first comparison, there is a large amount of data available s...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.