ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06336681IMT_EIBUpdated May 12, 2026Results posted

Inspiratory Muscle Training on The Severity of Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction and Time-Trial Performance (IMT_EIB)

An interventional study of PrO2Fit Device in Exercise Induced Bronchospasm and Exercise Induced Asthma, sponsored by Indiana University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 35 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-12.

Sponsored by Indiana University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 2 years after the study started (first participant enrolled Feb 2022, registered Mar 2024).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
15
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 35 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Due to the lack of studies examining the impact of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on the severity of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) and exercise performance, the specific aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of flow-resistive IMT on EIB severity and symptoms, short-acting beta-2-agonist medication use, operating lung volumes, respiratory and limb locomotor muscle deoxygenation during constant-load cycling exercise, exertional dyspnea, and cycling time-trial performance.

Read the detailed description

To the investigators knowledge, no study has been conducted assessing the impact of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) severity, exertional dyspnea, and cycling time-trial performance. A review noted that studies examining the impact of IMT on asthma have all demonstrated an increase in inspiratory muscle strength (maximal inspiratory pressure, MIP) and endurance (sustained maximal inspiratory pressure). In addition, it has been observed that the reduction in the perception of dyspnea following and during exercise leads to a reduction in short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) use and fewer asthma symptoms. The same review also noted the lack of data available to explain the impacts of IMT on exercise performance and tolerance in athletes with EIB. Due to the lack of studies examining the impact of IMT on the severity of EIB and exercise performance, the specific aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of flow-resistive IMT on EIB severity and symptoms, SABA medication use, operating lung volumes, respiratory and limb locomotor muscle deoxygenation during constant-load cycling exercise, femoral blood flow, exertional dyspnea, and cycling time-trial performance. It is hypothesized that eight weeks of IMT will reduce EIB's severity and symptoms, respiratory and limb locomotor muscle deoxygenation, improve operating lung volumes, and exertional dyspnea and improve cycling time-trial performance.

02

Conditions studied

  • Exercise Induced Bronchospasm
  • Exercise Induced Asthma
03

In context

Asthma, Exercise-Induced

52 studies on the registry are indexed under Asthma, Exercise-Induced; 3 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 15 is below the median of 47 across 40 interventional studies indexed under Asthma, Exercise-Induced.

Browse Asthma, Exercise-Induced studies →

Lead sponsor

Indiana University is the lead sponsor of 986 studies on the registry; 198 are open to participants now.

Of its 148 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 118 (80%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 35 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Male and female, between the ages of 18 to 35 years.
  • Required to be a competitive recreational or college athlete and have at least 1-2 years of cycling or biking experience.
  • (BMI) of 18.5 to 28 kg/m\^2
  • Considered "moderately to highly active" by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ).
  • Have clinically treated mild to moderate persistent asthma and/or exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB), with a resting (FEV1) > 65% of predicted.
  • A ≥ 10% drop in FEV1 after eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH).
  • Prescribed short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) by a physician.
  • Comfortable not taking SABA before experimental visits.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of smoking or recreational smoking, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, neurological disease, and metabolic disease.
  • Currently taking asthma maintenance medications (e.g., and leukotriene modifiers)
  • Any injuries in the past 6 months.
  • Taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)'s (antidepressants and anxiety medication), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication, and chronically consume pain medication (Aleve, Tylenol, cannabidiol (CBD), etc.).
  • Has had or is positive for COVID-19.
  • Resting blood pressure of > 130 mmHg systolic or 90 mmHg diastolic.
  • Resting Pulse rate of > 100 bpm.
  • Regularly consuming fish oil supplements or eating more then one fish meal per week
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

BMI (body mass index)

Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.

What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.

FEV1

From a breathing test (spirometry): how much air you can blow out in the first second. Often given as a percentage of what is expected for your age, height and sex.

Corticosteroids (steroids)

Anti-inflammatory medicines such as prednisone, prednisolone and dexamethasone — not the anabolic steroids used for muscle.

Studies differ in what they allow: check which steroid medicines, routes (tablets, injections, creams, inhalers, eye drops) and doses this study accepts.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
15 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) group

    The test protocol requires participants to inhale maximally (maximum inspiratory pressure, MIP) against 2mm diameter leak and sustain inhalation (sustained maximal inspiratory pressure, SMIP) until task failure. Participants will complete 3 SMIP maneuvers with each training session and use the best of the three for that day's training template (corresponding to about 80% SMIP for the IMT group) via the PrO2Fit software. Participants must match or exceed the SMIP template with each increasing level of the work-rest ratio. Work at each level consists of 6 breaths, 36 breaths total. If six breaths are completed, the next level starts. Rest intervals will progressively shorten as training continues from 40-seconds to 5-seconds. The session will be terminated if participants are unable to match at least 90% of the training template for two consecutive breaths or have completed all 36 breaths. Training will be done 3 times a week, and over 8-weeks.

    Device: PrO2Fit Device

  • Sham comparator
    Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) group

    Similar to the IMT group protocol, participants will be required to complete 3 SMIP maneuvers with each training session. Participants will use the best of the three for that day's training template (corresponding to about 30% SMIP for the Sham-IMT group) via the PrO2Fit software. Participants must match or exceed the SMIP template with each increasing level of the work-rest ratio. Work at each level consists of 6 breaths, 36 breaths total. If six breaths are completed, the next level starts. Rest intervals will progressively shorten as training continues from 40-seconds to 30-, 20-, 15-, 10-, and 5-seconds. The training session will be terminated if participants are unable to match at least 90% of the training template for two consecutive breaths or have completed all 36 breaths. Training will be done 3 times a week, and over 8-weeks.

    Device: PrO2Fit Device

Interventions

  • DevicePrO2Fit Device

    The flow-resistive protocol using the device requires participants to maximally inhale as hard as they can and as long as they can against a small leak (2mm diameter hole) until task failure. This records maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) and sustained maximal inspiratory pressure (SMIP) values which will be recorded and the best is chosen for the software template by the participant to continue their training session (previously described in arm/group description). The use of the device occurs three times a week, and used for 6-8 weeks.

    Also known as: Flow-resistive inspiratory muscle training, Sham-Flow-resistive inspiratory muscle training

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction (EIB) Severity

    More specifically, the pre- and post-values of the percentage drop in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from the eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH) test before and after IMT will be measured. Percentage drop in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) will be reported in percentages.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  2. Maximum Inspiratory Pressure

    More specifically, the pre- to post-values of maximum inspiratory pressure (reported as cmH2O) before and after IMT will be measured.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  3. Sustained Maximum Inspiratory Pressure

    More specifically, the pre- to post-values of sustained maximum inspiratory pressure (reported as pressure time units) before and after IMT will be measured.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  4. 16-km Cycling Time-Trial Time to Completion

    More specifically, differences in 16-km cycling time-trial completion time (seconds) before and after IMT.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  5. 16-km Cycling Time-Trial Power Output

    More specifically, differences in 16-km cycling time-trial power output (watts) before and after IMT.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  6. Constant Load 1 and 2 Speed

    More specifically, differences in constant load performance (i.e., speed) before and after IMT.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Perception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Constant Load 1

    More specifically, whether IMT affects an individual's perception of exertional dyspnea (revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate breathing intensity and unpleasantness) and revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate leg fatigue during constant load 1 (CL1) cycling. Scores will be reported as whole numbers between 0-10. Higher scores indicate extreme intensity, unpleasantness, or fatigue.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  2. Perception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Constant Load 2

    More specifically, whether IMT affects an individual's perception of exertional dyspnea (revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate breathing intensity and unpleasantness) and revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate leg fatigue during constant load 2 (CL2) cycling. Scores will be reported as whole numbers between 0-10. Higher scores indicate extreme intensity, unpleasantness, or fatigue.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  3. Perception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Time-Trial Cycling

    More specifically, whether IMT affects an individual's perception of exertional dyspnea (revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate breathing intensity and unpleasantness) and revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate leg fatigue during a 16-km cycling time-trial. Scores will be reported as whole numbers between 0-10. Higher scores indicate extreme intensity, unpleasantness, or fatigue.

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  4. Deoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 1

    More specifically, the effects of IMT on the deoxygenation (HHb) of the respiratory (RM) and limb locomotor muscles (LM) during constant load 1 (CL1) cycling

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  5. Deoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 2

    More specifically, the effects of IMT on the deoxygenation of the respiratory and limb locomotor muscles during constant load 2 (CL2) cycling

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  6. Deoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Time-Trial Cycling

    More specifically, the effects of IMT on the deoxygenation of the respiratory and limb locomotor muscles during a 16-km cycling time-trial

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  7. Femoral Blood Flow of the Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 1

    More specifically, the effects of IMT on femoral blood flow (FBF) of the limb locomotor muscles during constant load 1 (CL1) cycling

    Time frame: 8 weeks

  8. Femoral Blood Flow of the Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 2

    More specifically, the effects of IMT on femoral blood flow (FBF) of the limb locomotor muscles during constant load 2 (CL2) cycling

    Time frame: 8 weeks

07

Results

Posted May 12, 2026
Limitations and caveats
Key limitations include a small, imbalanced sample (particularly Sham-IMT), increasing risk of Type II error and unstable interaction estimates. Baseline fitness differences may have biased performance outcomes. EIB variability, unsupervised training, and fixed resistance may have reduced treatment precision. Mechanistic measures were not assessed. Learning effects and methodological variability may have influenced kinetics data. Findings may not generalize beyond recreationally active people.

Participant flow

Participants were recruited via flyers posted in the School of Public Health and distributed in Kinesiology labs (e.g., SPH-K409, SPH-K535) and other departmental courses. Flyers were also shared on the IU Classifieds website to reach the broader IU community. 15 participants enrolled; 11 completed the study. 4 withdrew or were excluded (EIB criteria not met or training noncompliance). Recruitment occurred from April 2022 to April 2025 at the School of Public Health.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneInspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Started105
Completed74
Not completed31
Withdrew: Lack of efficacy21
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up10

Outcome measures

PrimaryExercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction (EIB) Severity

More specifically, the pre- and post-values of the percentage drop in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from the eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH) test before and after IMT will be measured. Percentage drop in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) will be reported in percentages.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · Percentage (%)
Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction (EIB) Severity
Percentage (%)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction (EIB) Severity19.84 ± 12.8410.94 ± 8.94
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.339 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -6.74 · 95% CI -21.9 to 8.38Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
PrimaryMaximum Inspiratory Pressure

More specifically, the pre- to post-values of maximum inspiratory pressure (reported as cmH2O) before and after IMT will be measured.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · cmH2O
Maximum Inspiratory Pressure
cmH2OInspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Maximum Inspiratory Pressure131.9 ± 33.1122.4 ± 32.9
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.495 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 11.4 · 95% CI -24.9 to 47.6Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
PrimarySustained Maximum Inspiratory Pressure

More specifically, the pre- to post-values of sustained maximum inspiratory pressure (reported as pressure time units) before and after IMT will be measured.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · ptu
Sustained Maximum Inspiratory Pressure
ptuInspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Sustained Maximum Inspiratory Pressure978.4 ± 216.8978.8 ± 229.3
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.073 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects) · Mean difference (final values): 207 · 95% CI -23.3 to 483Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects
Primary16-km Cycling Time-Trial Time to Completion

More specifically, differences in 16-km cycling time-trial completion time (seconds) before and after IMT.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · Seconds (sec)
16-km Cycling Time-Trial Time to Completion
Seconds (sec)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
16-km Cycling Time-Trial Time to Completion1900 ± 2631668 ± 39
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.781 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 18.1 · 95% CI -124 to 161Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
Primary16-km Cycling Time-Trial Power Output

More specifically, differences in 16-km cycling time-trial power output (watts) before and after IMT.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · Watts (W)
16-km Cycling Time-Trial Power Output
Watts (W)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
16-km Cycling Time-Trial Power Output171.9 ± 57.4221.8 ± 13.6
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.769 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 3.22 · 95% CI -20.8 to 27.2Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
SecondaryPerception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Constant Load 1

More specifically, whether IMT affects an individual's perception of exertional dyspnea (revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate breathing intensity and unpleasantness) and revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate leg fatigue during constant load 1 (CL1) cycling. Scores will be reported as whole numbers between 0-10. Higher scores indicate extreme intensity, unpleasantness, or fatigue.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Perception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Constant Load 1
units on a scaleInspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Baseline - Dyspnea Intensity3.75 ± 1.613.94 ± 0.72
Post-training - Dyspnea Intensity2.86 ± 1.613.25 ± 1.06
Baseline - Dyspnea Unpleasantness3.25 ± 1.353.06 ± 1.11
Post-training - Dyspnea Unpleasantness2.46 ± 1.602.50 ± 1.37
Baseline - Leg Fatigue4.25 ± 2.234.31 ± 1.07
Post-training - Leg Fatigue3.43 ± 1.223.81 ± 1.55
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.620 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 0.205 · 95% CI -0.698 to 1.11Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.781 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 0.223 · 95% CI -1.54 to 1.98Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.772 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 0.321 · 95% CI -2.11 to 2.75Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
SecondaryPerception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Constant Load 2

More specifically, whether IMT affects an individual's perception of exertional dyspnea (revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate breathing intensity and unpleasantness) and revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate leg fatigue during constant load 2 (CL2) cycling. Scores will be reported as whole numbers between 0-10. Higher scores indicate extreme intensity, unpleasantness, or fatigue.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Perception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Constant Load 2
units on a scaleInspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Baseline - Dyspnea Intensity5.71 ± 2.607.06 ± 1.01
Post-training - Dyspnea Intensity4.79 ± 2.705.17 ± 1.47
Baseline - Dyspnea Unpleasantness5.13 ± 2.846.19 ± 1.66
Post-training - Dyspnea Unpleasantness4.50 ± 2.744.60 ± 1.46
Baseline - Leg Fatigue5.71 ± 2.277.06 ± 0.88
Post-training - Leg Fatigue5.29 ± 2.455.69 ± 1.76
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.250 (Due to missing data from baseline (PRE) compared to post-training data, a Mixed Effects Model was used, looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -1.14 · 95% CI -3.27 to 0.980Effect size represented as partial eta squared was not calculated with the Mixed Effects Model.
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.364 (Due to missing data from baseline (PRE) compared to post-training data, a Mixed Effects Model was used, looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -1.02 · 95% CI -3.47 to 1.43
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.365 (Due to missing data from baseline (PRE) compared to post-training data, a Mixed Effects Model was used, looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -0.985 · 95% CI -3.35 to 1.38
SecondaryPerception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Time-Trial Cycling

More specifically, whether IMT affects an individual's perception of exertional dyspnea (revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate breathing intensity and unpleasantness) and revised Borg Scales from 0-10 to rate leg fatigue during a 16-km cycling time-trial. Scores will be reported as whole numbers between 0-10. Higher scores indicate extreme intensity, unpleasantness, or fatigue.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Perception of Breathing Intensity, Unpleasantness, and Leg Fatigue During Time-Trial Cycling
units on a scaleInspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Baseline - Dyspnea Intensity4.89 ± 2.265.75 ± 1.83
Post-training - Dyspnea Intensity4.71 ± 2.195.38 ± 1.96
Baseline - Dyspnea Unpleasantness4.50 ± 2.355.25 ± 2.25
Post-training - Dyspnea Unpleasantness3.89 ± 2.454.31 ± 1.78
Baseline - Leg Fatigue5.57 ± 1.946.56 ± 1.75
Post-training - Leg Fatigue5.64 ± 2.176.63 ± 1.53
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.713 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -0.196 · 95% CI -1.37 to 0.976Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.585 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -0.330 · 95% CI -1.65 to 0.988Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.989 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Median difference (final values): -0.00893 · 95% CI -1.38 to 1.36Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
SecondaryDeoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 1

More specifically, the effects of IMT on the deoxygenation (HHb) of the respiratory (RM) and limb locomotor muscles (LM) during constant load 1 (CL1) cycling

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · micromolar (uM)
Deoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 1
micromolar (uM)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Baseline - HHb LM5.50 ± 2.847.57 ± 10.62
Post-training - HHb LM8.29 ± 6.2413.62 ± 9.68
Baseline - HHb RM6.19 ± 4.806.44 ± 2.35
Post-training - HHb RM2.30 ± 4.395.45 ± 4.60
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.280 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 3.26 · 95% CI -3.15 to 9.66Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.138 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects) · Mean difference (final values): 2.89 · 95% CI -1.13 to 6.91Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects
SecondaryDeoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 2

More specifically, the effects of IMT on the deoxygenation of the respiratory and limb locomotor muscles during constant load 2 (CL2) cycling

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · micromolar (uM)
Deoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 2
micromolar (uM)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Baseline - HHb LM9.07 ± 4.0517.49 ± 8.85
Post-training - HHb LM10.58 ± 5.5815.97 ± 8.55
Baseline - HHb RM7.93 ± 3.4012.19 ± 9.09
Post-training - HHb RM6.87 ± 6.5312.95 ± 8.11
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.254 (Due to missing data from baseline (PRE) compared to post-training data, a Mixed Effects Model was used, looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -2.82 · 95% CI -8.10 to 2.46
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.683 (Due to missing data from baseline (PRE) compared to post-training data, a Mixed Effects Model was used, looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 1.36 · 95% CI -6.05 to 8.76
SecondaryDeoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Time-Trial Cycling

More specifically, the effects of IMT on the deoxygenation of the respiratory and limb locomotor muscles during a 16-km cycling time-trial

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · micromolar (uM)
Deoxygenation of the Respiratory and Limb Locomotor Muscles During Time-Trial Cycling
micromolar (uM)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Baseline - HHb LM10.58 ± 8.1114.19 ± 9.54
Post-training - HHb LM10.89 ± 7.4313.25 ± 7.40
Baseline - HHb RM6.40 ± 6.0314.25 ± 5.43
Post-training - HHb RM4.33 ± 5.638.94 ± 3.32
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.762 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -1.25 · 95% CI -10.3 to 7.82Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.337 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): -3.25 · 95% CI -10.5 to 4.00Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
SecondaryFemoral Blood Flow of the Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 1

More specifically, the effects of IMT on femoral blood flow (FBF) of the limb locomotor muscles during constant load 1 (CL1) cycling

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · millimeters per minute (mL/min)
Femoral Blood Flow of the Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 1
millimeters per minute (mL/min)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Baseline - FBF9384.32 ± 5889.629055.95 ± 4048.40
Post-training - FBF10255.24 ± 7543.1711687.37 ± 3467.06
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.713 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 1761 · 95% CI -8725 to 12246Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
SecondaryFemoral Blood Flow of the Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 2

More specifically, the effects of IMT on femoral blood flow (FBF) of the limb locomotor muscles during constant load 2 (CL2) cycling

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · milliliters per minute (mL/min)
Femoral Blood Flow of the Limb Locomotor Muscles During Constant Load 2
milliliters per minute (mL/min)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Baseline - FBF14970.14 ± 6856.7313760.42 ± 4047.17
Post-training - FBF8608.25 ± 5294.6115903.34 ± 9318.82
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.163 (Due to missing data from baseline (PRE) compared to post-training data, a Mixed Effects Model was used, looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (net): 8505 · 95% CI -3788 to 20798
PrimaryConstant Load 1 and 2 Speed

More specifically, differences in constant load performance (i.e., speed) before and after IMT.

Time frame:
8 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · kilometers per hour (kph)
Constant Load 1 and 2 Speed
kilometers per hour (kph)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group
Constant Load 1 (15% Below GET)26.6 ± 7.035.9 ± 6.7
Constant Load 2 (15% Above GET)25.8 ± 5.633.4 ± 9.9
Statistical analysis
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · ANOVA · p = 0.639 (Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 3.10 · 95% CI -11.4 to 17.6Two way ANOVA looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.
  • Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group vs Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.512 (Due to missing data from baseline (PRE) comapred to post-training data, a Mixed Effects Model was used, looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pre-training vs post-training) interaction effects.) · Mean difference (final values): 4.20 · 95% CI -9.03 to 17.4Due to missing data from baseline (PRE) comapred to post-training data, a Mixed Effects Model was used, looking at group (IMT vs Sham-IMT) by time (pr

Adverse events

Collected over from enrollment through end of study, up to 3 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Group0/10 (0%)0/10 (0%)0/10 (0%)
Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) Group0/5 (0%)0/5 (0%)0/5 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

After arm assignment, one participant ceased communication following emails indicating they were not training and did not respond to scheduling attempts; this individual was excluded. Two participants reported inconsistent training and subsequently stopped responding to follow-up communications and were excluded. One additional participant did not adhere to the prescribed training protocol and was excluded for noncompliance. This led to IMT = 7 and Sham-IMT = 4 for fully completed.

Age, Customized
Age, Customized(Years)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) GroupTotal
Age21.1 ± 2.221.2 ± 3.121.1 ± 2.4
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) GroupTotal
Female000
Male10515
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) GroupTotal
Count of participants——0
EIB Severity
EIB Severity(Percentage (%))Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) GroupTotal
Mean22.28 ± 13.6718.74 ± 6.2621.20 ± 11.59
MIP
MIP(centimeters of water (cmH2O))Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) GroupTotal
Mean105.5 ± 32.194.8 ± 12.7101.9 ± 27.2
SMIP
SMIP(pressure time units (ptu))Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) GroupTotal
Mean816.5 ± 208.1781.6 ± 336.3804.9 ± 245.9
Constant Load 1 Speed
Constant Load 1 Speed(kilometers per hour (kph))Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) GroupTotal
Mean23.43 ± 9.8930.73 ± 5.7225.86 ± 9.21
Constant Load 2 Speed
Constant Load 2 Speed(kilometers per hour (kph))Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) GroupSham Inspiratory Muscle Training (Sham-IMT) GroupTotal
Mean22.94 ± 7.9128.03 ± 8.3224.76 ± 8.14

2 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

1 site
  • School of Public Health-Bloomington
    Bloomington, Indiana 47405, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — The plan to share individual participant data (IPD) is still unknown. However, if other researchers request IPD, we will evaluate that request and determine to share IPD.

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 12, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06336681
Lead sponsor
Indiana University
Responsible party
Tim Mickleborough (Professor, Indiana University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 29, 2024
Start date
Feb 10, 2022
Primary completion
Apr 30, 2025
Completion
Apr 30, 2025
Results posted
May 12, 2026
Last update
May 12, 2026

Study contacts

Tim Mickleborough, Ph.D.
principal investigator · Indiana University

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion