Hydrogenology
Source-linked study record

Hydrogen/oxygen therapy for the treatment of an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group controlled trial

Zheng ZG, Sun WZ, Hu JY, Jie ZJ, Xu JF, Cao J, Song YL, Wang CH, Wang J, Zhao H, Guo ZL, Zhong NS. · Respiratory Research. 2021;22:149.

HumanInhaled H₂Published 2021Source checked
Study record, not medical adviceThis record reports what the source states. It is not medical advice and does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person.
Quick summary

Study at a glance

Evidence type

Human

Population or model

Adults aged at least 40 years hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD, obstructive spirometry and baseline Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale score of at least 6.

Intervention and dose

Nasal-mask inhalation for six to eight hours daily on seven consecutive days, alongside usual treatment. · Total mixture flow was 3.0 L/min. The article explicitly reports H₂ flow 2.0 L/min and O₂ flow 1.0 L/min.

Duration

Six to eight hours daily for up to seven days; mean device exposure was 6.4 days and roughly 365–379 minutes/day.

Reported result

BCSS and cough scores improved more with H₂/O₂ than with the active oxygen comparator. Changes in FVC, FEV₁, FEV₁/FVC, pH, PaO₂, PaCO₂ and bicarbonate did not differ significantly. Adverse-event frequency and severity did not differ significantly; no deaths or device defects were reported.

Main limitation

Relatively small short trial, retrospectively registered, subjective symptom primary endpoint, 14 randomized participants absent from the per-protocol set, no heliox comparator and no long-term outcomes. The device was identified by manufacturer/model, although the study reported no specific funding; one author was a journal associate editor and the others declared no competing interests.

Evidence and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence type

Human

Reported design

Ten-centre randomized double-blind active-controlled superiority trial

Research topic

Respiratory health

Administration form

Inhaled H₂

Information not yet classified

Some editorial classification fields are still pending. The source-reported outcomes and result are shown below; Hydrogenology does not infer a positive or negative signal from prose automatically.

Reported in the source

Methods

Population or model

Adults aged at least 40 years hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD, obstructive spirometry and baseline Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale score of at least 6.

Sample

108 randomized, 54 per group; 107 in the full-analysis set and 93 in the per-protocol analysis.

Duration

Six to eight hours daily for up to seven days; mean device exposure was 6.4 days and roughly 365–379 minutes/day.

Intervention

Nasal-mask inhalation for six to eight hours daily on seven consecutive days, alongside usual treatment.

Hydrogen form

Brown's gas / oxyhydrogen generated at an H₂:O₂ volume ratio of 2:1.

Dose or H₂ specification

Total mixture flow was 3.0 L/min. The article explicitly reports H₂ flow 2.0 L/min and O₂ flow 1.0 L/min.

H₂ flow

2,000 mL/min.

O₂ delivered with H₂

1,000 mL/min; additional oxygen was permitted if SpO₂ fell below 88%.

Comparator

A visually matched oxygen concentrator delivering 2 L/min air plus 1 L/min O₂; both groups received standard care.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Day-7 BCSS symptom score, daily BCSS, cough assessment, spirometry, arterial blood gas, oxygen saturation, additional respiratory support, adverse events and device performance.

Reported result

BCSS and cough scores improved more with H₂/O₂ than with the active oxygen comparator. Changes in FVC, FEV₁, FEV₁/FVC, pH, PaO₂, PaCO₂ and bicarbonate did not differ significantly. Adverse-event frequency and severity did not differ significantly; no deaths or device defects were reported.

Extraction completeness

The complete free PMC article and tables were checked for randomization, masking, participant flow, exact component flows, treatment exposure, primary and null respiratory outcomes, adverse events, funding and conflicts.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit.

Interpretation limits

Limitations and applicability

Main methodological cautions

Relatively small short trial, retrospectively registered, subjective symptom primary endpoint, 14 randomized participants absent from the per-protocol set, no heliox comparator and no long-term outcomes. The device was identified by manufacturer/model, although the study reported no specific funding; one author was a journal associate editor and the others declared no competing interests.

Applies directly to

Hospitalized acute COPD exacerbations receiving concurrent standard care; it does not establish long-term home treatment or replacement of indicated oxygen/ventilatory support.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Read how records and evidence assessments are prepared.

Sources and status

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 33985501 · DOI: 10.1186/s12931-021-01740-w

Publisher access

Free full article in PubMed Central.

Extraction basis

Complete PMC article, supplementary participant-flow information and PubMed metadata; full-text extraction checked 9 August 2026.

Last reviewed

10 August 2026

Help the next reader

Help people check the facts before they buy.

Hydrogenology keeps 665 source-checked records accessible without advertising or product promotion.

Support independent access
Help us correct the recordReport a discrepancy

Send the exact difference between this page and the linked source. The study reference is attached automatically.