Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial study record

The effect of stabilized hydrogen inhalation on clinical and functional parameters in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Antipushina DN, Smirnova MI, Gorshkov AYu, Strelkova AV, Ryzhakova LN, Emelyanov AV, Voinova SN, Ignatikova EN, Koshelyaevskaya YaN, Gufranov KF, Drapkina OM. · Russian Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2026;29(6):58–67.

HumanInhaled H₂Published 2026
Study record, not medical adviceThis page reports one source and Hydrogenology’s source-text extraction. It does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person. Human, animal and laboratory evidence must not be treated as equivalent.
Source and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence stream

Human

Reported design

Randomized blinded controlled pilot study

Research topic

Respiratory health

Administration classification

Inhaled H₂

Study result signal

Mostly null between groups, with isolated secondary signals.

Outcome type

Symptoms, function, cardiopulmonary tests, laboratory measures and safety.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

Population or model

Outpatients with COPD in remission.

Sample

24 participants; H₂ group 13 and vapor-only group 11.

Duration

10 sessions, minimum eight, with follow-up at 28 days.

Intervention

Stabilized H₂ with water vapor for 60 minutes daily.

Hydrogen form

Inhaled H₂-containing gas with water vapor.

H₂ specification

At least 1% H₂; SUISONIA FRJ-220V device.

H₂ flow

Device delivery as reported; a separate total flow was not stated.

O₂ delivered with H₂

No therapeutic oxygen co-delivery was reported.

Comparator

Water-vapor inhalation without the H₂-generating cartridge.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

CAT, quality of life, six-minute walk, spirometry, ECG, echocardiography, inflammation and adverse events.

Reported result

Both groups improved on the primary CAT outcome without a clear between-group advantage; most tests were null, while selected 28-day pulmonary-pressure and walking comparisons favored H₂.

Results-extraction completeness

The full article methods, intervention, outcomes, positive and null findings, funding and conflict statements were checked.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.

Interpretation limits

Cautions and applicability

Design and reporting cautions

Very small pilot with many outcomes; isolated secondary findings require cautious interpretation.

Applies directly to

The reported COPD outpatient population and protocol only.

Preliminary appraisal framework

Cochrane RoB 2 — preliminary

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Some concerns

Appraisal rationale

Randomization and blinding were reported, but the small sample, multiple endpoints and isolated secondary findings create imprecision and reporting concerns.

Appraisal domains

Random sequence reported or described · Allocation concealment not fully established · Deviations and co-interventions checked · Outcome measurement checked by endpoint · No outcome-level protocol comparison completed

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.

Provenance

Sources and record status

Identifiers

DOI: 10.17116/profmed20262906158 · DOI: 10.17116/profmed20262906158

Publisher access

A free publisher or repository full article was checked.

Extraction basis

Publisher or repository full article and bibliographic record; checked 10 August 2026.

Record revision

2026-08-10