Dataset Information

Homeopathic drug proving of Okoubaka aubrevillei: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Homeopathic drug proving is a basic concept in homeopathy. This study aimed to record symptoms produced by a homeopathic drug compared with placebo.This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial consisted of a 7-day run-in period, a 5-day intervention period and a 16-day post-intervention observation period. Subjects, investigators and statisticians were blinded for intervention groups and identity of the homeopathic drug. Subjects in the intervention group received Okoubaka aubrevillei (potency C12) and subjects in the placebo group received the optically identical sucrose globules. Dosage in both groups was five globules taken five times per day over a maximum period of 5 days. Subjects documented the symptoms they experienced in a semistructured online diary. The primary outcome parameter was the number of characteristic proving symptoms compared with placebo after a period of 3 weeks. Characteristic symptoms were categorised using content analysis. Secondary outcome parameters were the qualitative differences in profiles of characteristic and proving symptoms and the total number of all proving symptoms. The number of symptoms was quantitatively analysed on an intention-to-treat basis using analyses of covariance with the subject's expectation and baseline values as covariates.Thirty-one subjects were included (19 Okoubaka and 12 placebo). Data for 29 participants could be analysed. No significant differences in number of characteristic symptoms in both groups were observed between Okoubaka (mean±standard deviation 5.4±6.0) and placebo (4.9±5.6). The odds ratio for observation of a characteristic symptom was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 3.05, P=0.843). Females and subjects expecting a higher number of symptoms at baseline or feeling more sensitive to homeopathic drugs experienced more characteristic symptoms regardless of allocation. The qualitative analysis showed an inter-coder reliability of 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.76). The qualitative comparison of symptom profiles was inconclusive.Combined results of qualitative and quantitative methods did not result in a significant difference of characteristic proving symptoms between O. aubrevillei C12 and placebo. The qualitative comparison of the symptom profiles leaves some open questions. The nocebo effect might be a plausible explanation for most of the phenomena observed in this trial.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01061229.

SUBMITTER: Teut M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3652761 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Homeopathic drug proving of Okoubaka aubrevillei: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Teut Michael M Dahler Joern J Hirschberg Ute U Luedtke Rainer R Albrecht Henning H Witt Claudia M CM

Trials 20130405

<h4>Background</h4>Homeopathic drug proving is a basic concept in homeopathy. This study aimed to record symptoms produced by a homeopathic drug compared with placebo.<h4>Methods</h4>This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial consisted of a 7-day run-in period, a 5-day intervention period and a 16-day post-intervention observation period. Subjects, investigators and statisticians were blinded for intervention groups and identity of the homeopathic drug. Subjects ...[more]

PMID: 23561008

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study protocol adapts the traditional homeopathic drug proving methodology to a modern clinical trial design.Multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial with 30 healthy volunteers. The study consists of a seven day run-in period, a five day intervention period and a 16 day post-intervention observation period. Subjects, investigators and the statisticians are blinded from the allocation to the study arm and from the identity of the homeopathic drug. The intervention is a highly diluted homeopathic drug (potency C12 = 1024), Dose: 5 globules taken 5 times per day over a maximum period of 5 days. The placebo consists of an optically identical carrier substance (sucrose globules). Subjects document the symptoms they experience in a semi-structured online diary. The primary outcome parameter is the number of specific symptoms that characterise the intervention compared to the placebo after a period of three weeks. Secondary outcome parameters are qualitative differences in profiles of characteristic and proving symptoms and the total number of all proving symptoms. The number of symptoms will be quantitatively analysed on an intention-to-treat basis using ANCOVA with the subject's expectation and baseline values as covariates. Content analysis according to Mayring is adapted to suit the homeopathic qualitative analysis procedure.Homeopathic drug proving trials using the terminology of clinical trials according GCP and fulfilling current requirements for research under the current drug regulations is feasible. However, within the current regulations, homeopathic drug proving trials are classified as phase 1 trials, although their aim is not to explore the safety and pharmacological dynamics of the drug, but rather to find clinical indications according to the theory of homeopathy. To avoid bias, it is necessary that neither the subjects nor the investigators know the identity of the drug. This requires a modification to the informed consent process and blinded study materials. Because it is impossible to distinguish between adverse events and proving symptoms, both must be documented together.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01061229.

Project description:BackgroundA rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.MethodsLiterature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.ResultsForty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence.ConclusionsThe quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

Project description:IntroductionPancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related death in developed countries. Despite advances in systemic chemotherapy, the mainstay of curative therapy for non-metastatic disease is surgical resection. However, the perioperative period is characterised by stress and inflammatory reactions that can contribute to metastatic spread and disease recurrence. Catecholamines and prostaglandins play a crucial role in these reactions. Therefore, a drug repurposing of betablockers and cyclooxygenase inhibitors seems reasonable to attenuate tumour-associated inflammation by inhibiting psychological, surgical and inflammatory stress responses. This may cause a relevant antitumourigenic and antimetastatic effect during the perioperative period, a window for cancer-directed therapy that is currently largely unexploited.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective, single-centre, two-arm randomised, patient and observer blinded, placebo-controlled, phase-II trial evaluating safety and feasibility of combined perioperative treatment with propranolol and etodolac in adult patients with non-metastatic cancer of the pancreatic head undergoing elective pancreatoduodenectomy. 100 patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria will be randomised to perioperative treatment for 25 days perioperatively with a combination of propranolol and etodolac or placebo. Primary outcome of interest will be safety in terms of serious adverse events and reactions within 3 months. Furthermore, adherence to trial medication will be assessed as feasibility outcomes. Preliminary efficacy data will be evaluated for the purpose of power calculation for a potential subsequent phase-III trial. The clinical trial is accompanied by a translational study investigating the mechanisms of action of the combined therapy on a molecular basis.Ethics and disseminationThe PROSPER-trial has been approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (reference number 4042875) and the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (reference number AFmo-385/2018). The final trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at appropriate national and international conferences.Trial registration numbersDRKS00014054; EudraCT number: 2018-000415-25.

Project description:BackgroundWell tolerated antivirals administered early in the course of COVID-19 infection when the viremia is highest could prevent progression to severe disease. Favipiravir inhibits SARS-CoV-2 viral replication in vitro with evidence of clinical benefit in open label trials. Placebo controlled studies of people with early symptomatic COVID-19 with regular assessments of SARS-CoV-2 viral load can determine if it has an antiviral effect and improves clinical outcomes.MethodsPeople with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and 5 days or less of symptoms were randomised 1:1 to favipiravir 1800 mg on day 1, then 800 mg twice daily or matched placebo for 14 days. SARS-CoV-2 viral load was quantitated from second daily self-collected nose-throat swabs while receiving study drug. The primary endpoint was time to virological cure defined as 2 successive swabs negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and secondary outcomes were progression of disease severity, symptom resolution and safety.FindingsBetween 31 July 2020 and 19 September 2021, 200 people were enrolled (199 in the community, 1 in hospital) with 190 receiving one or more doses of drug (modified intention to treat [mITT] population). There was no difference in time to virological cure (Log-rank p=0.6 comparing Kaplan Meier curves), progression to hospitalisation (14 favipiravir, 9 placebo; p=0.38), time to symptom resolution (cough, fever, sore throat) and there were no deaths. 51 people related an adverse event that was possibly drug related, but these were evenly distributed (n=24 favipiravir, n=27 placebo). Sensitivity analyses where the definition of virological cure was changed to: a single negative PCR, exclude datapoints based on the presence or absence of human DNA in the swab, a SARS-CoV-2 viral load < 300 copies/mL being considered negative all demonstrated no difference between arms.InterpretationFavipiravir does not improve the time to virological cure or clinical outcomes and shows no evidence of an antiviral effect when treating early symptomatic COVID-19 infection.FundingThe study was supported in part by grants from the Commonwealth Bank Australia, the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation, Melbourne Australia and the Orloff Family Charitable Trust, Melbourne, Australia. JHM is supported by the Medical Research Future Fund, AYP, JT are supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Dataset Information

Homeopathic drug proving of Okoubaka aubrevillei: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Publications

Homeopathic drug proving of Okoubaka aubrevillei: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets