Evaluation of the effect of camel milk in comparison with standard medicinal therapy on asthma patients

a parallel clinical trial

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.  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.