clinical trial
Prof Michael Frass is the undisputed star amongst researchers of homeopathy. Here are the awards and achievements that he mentions on his website:
- 1994 until 2019Head, Special Outpatient Clinic “Homeopathy in Malignant Diseases”, Department of Internal Medicine I, General Hospital of the City of Vienna
- 1992 until Feb. 2004Director, Intensivstation 13.i2, Klinik für Innere Medizin I
- 1994 until 1998 Medical Director Maimonides Center
- since May 1994Vice President of the “Medical Society for Classical Homeopathy” (ÄKH)
- since Oct. 1995Head of the Working Group for Homeopathy of the ÄKH in Vienna
- since Jan. 1998 Speaker of the ÄKH at training courses
- 1999 – 2012Training Officer of the Austrian Society for Internal and General Intensive Care Medicine (ÖGIAIM)
- 2001 until 2019 Coordinator of the lecture series “Selected chapters and scientific discussion of complementary medicine methods”, Med. Univ. Vienna, VO 560480
- May 2002 – Dec. 2005Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy
- since June 2003Member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Vienna International Academy of Holistic Medicine
- 2004 until 2019Expert in Airway Management and Homeopathy in Intensive Care Medicine at the Center of Excellence in Internal Critical Care Medicine (CEMIC).
- 2005 until 2019Coordinator of the free elective “Homeopathy”, Med. Univ. Vienna, VO 562 923
- since June 2005Director, Institute for Homeopathy Research
- 2006 until 2019Member of the planning area + lecturer for the line element “Interdisciplinary Patient Management” (compulsory lecture for medical students)
- since June 2006President of the Austrian Umbrella Association for Medical Holistic Medicine.
- since Nov. 2010Chairman of the Scientific Society for Homeopathy (WissHom)
Many of my readers will remember the case of the Prof. Frass et al study of homeopathy for cancer. On this blog, we have seen several articles about it:
- Michael Frass’ research into homeopathy for cancer: “numerous breaches of scientific integrity”
- An update on the dubious cancer study by Prof Michael Frass et al
- A thorough analysis of Prof M. Frass’ recent homeopathy trial casts serious doubts on its reliability
- Homeopathy prolongs survival of lung cancer patients … Can it be true?
The study and the suspicion of scientific misconduct it raised eventually resulted in an official complaint by the Viennese Medical School to the authority that deals with suspicions of publication fraud, the ‘Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity’. It took a very long time, but recently they have published their final on-line summary of their assessment of the case; here is my translation:
Enquiry A 2021/10:
After an Austrian university was informed externally and by name of possible scientific misconduct in a study and the resulting publication, the institution concerned submitted the already publicised suspected case in the field of applied natural sciences to the OeAWI with a request for examination by the Commission.
After establishing sufficient suspicion of various violations of good scientific practice, the Commission declared itself responsible and initiated proceedings. In the course of this, the principal investigator was given the opportunity to submit a written statement and to provide the Commission for Research Integrity Annual Report 2022 material that would help to clarify the facts of the case, which the accused submitted in large quantities.
In a very complex, comprehensive investigation, which required, among other things, the on-site inspection of original documents, the Commission was able to substantiate the suspicion of data falsification, fabrication and manipulation. In a final statement, the study director, who no longer works for the university in question, and the numerous co-authors were informed in detail about the course and results of the commission’s investigation and informed of the recommendations to the university and journal. The Commission recommended that the university concerned should consider investigating its own responsibilities and act accordingly, and that the publication should be withdrawn as a matter of urgency. The journal responsible for the publication was asked to withdraw the publication on the basis of the findings of the investigation.
Nobody who has studied the Frass paper in some detail can be surprised by the verdict. I do applaud the ‘Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity’ for their work. Yet, I do also have some criticism: health fraud on the scale of Frass can easily costs lives. I find it therefore unacceptable that the verdict took so long to get published.
Even worse is, in my view, the fact that the journal, ‘Oncologist’, is still offering this paper today, albeit with this ‘expression of concern’:
This is an Expression of Concern regarding: Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Claudia Pirker, Erwin Grasmuk-Siegl, Julian Domayer, Maximilian Hochmair, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Michael Schumacher, Sabine Zöchbauer-Müller, Raj K. Manchanda, Andrea Schrott, Otto Burghuber, Homeopathic Treatment as an Add-On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Three-Arm, Multicenter Study, The Oncologist, Volume 25, Issue 12, December 2020, Pages e1930–e1955, https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13548
In August 2022, the journal editors received credible information from the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity about potential data falsification and data manipulation in this article.*** While The Oncologist editorial team investigates and communicates with the corresponding author, the editors are publishing this Expression of Concern to alert readers that, pending the outcome and review of a full investigation, the research results presented may not be reliable.
Cancer patients will thus still read the dangerously misleading conclusions of the Frass fabrication: “Quality of life (QoL) improved significantly in the homeopathy group compared with placebo. In addition, survival was significantly longer in the homeopathy group versus placebo and control. A higher QoL might have contributed to the prolonged survival. The study suggests that homeopathy positively influences not only QoL but also survival. Further studies including other tumor entities are warranted.” And lives of cancer patients remain needlessly at risk. In my view, this is seriously unethical.
***As far as I know, they received credible information from others long before that!
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic, polyarticular autoimmune inflammatory disease that destroys the capsule and synovial lining of joints. Antirheumatic treatment reduces disease activity and inflammation, but not all patients respond to treatment. Naturopathy is claimed to be effective, but there is little data on the effect on inflammation and disease activity in RA. The objective of this study was therefore to explore the effect of 12 weeks of integrated naturopathy interventions on disease-specific inflammatory markers and quality of life in RA patients.
A total of 100 RA patients were randomized into two groups:
- the naturopathy group (integrated naturopathy interventions with routine medical therapy),
- the control group (only with routine medical therapy).
Blood samples were collected pre- and post-intervention for primary outcome measurements of systemic inflammatory markers (ESR, CRP, and IL-6). Disease activity score (DAS-28) and quality of life were used to assess disease activity and functional status using SF-36, respectively, at pre- and post-intervention time points.
The results show a notable decrease in disease activity after 12 weeks of naturopathy intervention. As such, a significant decrease was found in levels of systemic inflammatory markers such as ESR (p = 0.003) and IL-6 (p < 0.001), RA disease activity score (DAS-28) (p = 0.02), and most of the components of health-related quality of life (SF 36 scores) (p < 0.05) except in vitality (p = 0.06).
The authors conclused that the findings of the present study suggest that integrated naturopathy treatments may have the ability to control persistent inflammation, maintain immune homeostasis, and lower disease activity.
The naturopathic treatments included:
- acupuncture,
- hot and cold-water application to the painful joints,
- sauna baths,
- enemas,
- fasting,
- mud therapy,
- massage therapy.
The study was designed as an A+B versus B trial. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that subjective endpoints improved. A little more baffling are the changes in objective parameters. These could easily be due to the fasing interventions – there is reasonably sound evidence for such effects. Take this review, for instance:
Fasting is an act of restricting, for a certain length of time, food intake or intake of particular foods, and has been part of religious rituals for centuries. Religions such as Christianity and Islam use this practice as a form of sacrifice, self-discipline, and gratitude. However, in the past decade, fasting has penetrated the mainstream as a diet trend. There are several ways of fasting; existing fast mimicking eating methods promise accelerated weight loss, and many more benefits: lower cholesterol, prevention of type 2 diabetes and a longer lifespan. Even more, it has been proposed that fasting can downregulate the inflammatory process and potentially be used as a treatment regimen for several diseases. Here, we review the effects of fasting on immune and inflammatory pathways. Also, we present current knowledge about the role of fasting in the activity of inflammatory arthritides with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis.
What I am trying to say is this: some modalities used in naturopathy might well be effective in treating certain conditions. In my view, this is, however, no reason for condoning or recommening naturopathy as a whole. Or – to put it bluntly – naturopathy is a weird mixture of pure nonsense and some possibly reasonable interventions.
Pre-diabetes is a significant public health problem worldwide. India has a very high rate of progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes, 75-78 per thousand persons per year.
The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicinal products (HMPs) against placebos in preventing the progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes. It was designed as a ix-month, double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial.
Sixty participants with pre-diabetes were treated either with:
- HMPs plus yoga therapy (YT; n = 30)
- or with identical-looking placebos plus YT (n = 30).
Pre-diabetes was defined as elevated fasting blood glucose (FBS) of 100-125 mg/dL, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value of 5.7-6.4%, and/or an elevated blood glucose level 2 hrs. after an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) of 140-199 mg/dL (ICD-10-R73.03).
The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants progressing from pre-diabetes to diabetes, measured after three and six months. Secondary outcomes comprised of fasting blood glucose (FBS), oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), glycated hemoglobin percentage (HbA1c%), lipid profile, liver enzymes (alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase), urea and creatinine, and Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile version 2 (MYMOP-2); all measured after 3 and 6 months.
The proportion of participants converted from pre-diabetics to diabetics (n/N; n = diabetics, N = prediabetics) was significantly less in the verum group than control: HbA1C% (month 3: verum – 2/30 versus control – 11/30, p = 0.003; month 6: 3/30 vs. 2/30, p = 0.008), OGTT (month 3: 0/30 vs. 8/30, p = 0.015; month 6: 0/30 vs. 1/30, p = 0.008), but not according to FBS (month 3: 1/30 vs. 1/30, p = 0.779; month 6: 1/30 vs. 3/30, p = 0.469). Several secondary outcomes also revealed significant improvements in the verum group than in placebo: HbA1C% (p < 0.001), OGTT (p = 0.001), serum ALT (p = 0.031), creatinine (p = 0.012), and MYMOP-2 profile scores (p < 0.001). Sulphur, Bryonia alba, and Thuja occidentalis were the most frequently indicated medicines. Thus, HMPs outperformed placebos by successfully preventing the progression of pre-diabetes to diabetes.
The authors concluded that HMPs with YT produced significantly better effects than placebos plus YT with moderate to large effect sizes. Overall, HMPs outperformed placebos by successfully preventing the progression of pre-diabetes to diabetes.
This is an odd study with very odd results; it begs several questions and comments, e.g.:
- If the aim was to test the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicinal products (HMPs) against placebos in preventing the progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes, why add yoga as a treatment?
- What were the influences of other factors such as diet and life-style, and were these the same in both groups?
- The sample size seems far too small for such firm conclusions.
- What might be the alleged mechanism of action?
- Why not publish such a study that has allegedly important results in one of the many established journals dealing with diabetes?
I fear that this trial is merely one in the long list of poor quality, false-positive homeopathy studies that are currently emerging from India. I predict that the findings will not even be taken seriously enough to be submitted to a replication by established diabetes researchers.
This study evaluated and compared the effectiveness of Reiki and Qi-gong therapy techniques in improving diabetic patients’ negative emotional states. This quas-experimental research design was carried out at the National Institute of Diabetes and Endocrinology’s Hospital in Cairo, Egypt. It included 200 Type 2 diabetes patients randomized into two equal groups, one for Qigong and one for Reiki techniques. A self-administered questionnaire with a standardized tool (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales [DASS[) was used in data collection. The intervention programs were administered in the form of instructional guidelines through eight sessions for each group.
The results showed that the two study groups had similar socio-demographic characteristics. After implementation of the intervention, most patients in the two groups were having no anxiety, no depression, and no stress. Statistically significant improvements were seen in all three parameters in both groups (p<0.001). The multivariate analysis identified the study intervention as the main statistically significant independent negative predictor of the patients’ scores of anxiety, depression, and stress. Reiki technique was also a statistically significant independent negative predictor of these scores.
The authors conclused that both Reiki and Qi-gong therapy techniques were effective in improving diabetic patients’ negative emotional states of anxiety, depression, and stress, with slight superiority of the Reiki technique. The inclusion of these techniques in the management plans of Type-2 diabetic patients is recommended.
This is an excellent example of how NOT to design a clinical trial!
- If your aim is to test the efficacy of Reiki, conduct a trial of Reiki versus sham-Reiki.
- If your aim is to test the efficacy of Qi-gong, conduct a trial of Qi-gong versus sham-Qi-gong.
- If you compare two therapies in one trial, one has to be of proven and undoubted efficacy.
- Comparing two treatments of unproven efficacy cannot normally lead to a meaningful result.
- It is like trying to solve a mathematical equasion with two unknowns.
- A study that cannot produce a meaningful result is a waste of resorces.
- It arguably also is a neglect of research ethics.
- Even if we disregarded all these flaws and problems, recommending therapies for routine use on the basis of one single study is irresponsible nonsense.
All this is truly elementary and should be known by any researcher (not to mention research supervisor). Yet, in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), it needs to be stressed over and over again. The ‘National Institute of Diabetes and Endocrinology’s Hospital in Cairo’ (and all other institutions that produce such shameful pseudoscience) urgently need to get their act together:
you are doing nobody a favour!
Whenever a journalist wants to discuss the subject of acupuncture with me, he or she will inevitably ask one question:
DOES ACUPUNCTURE WORK?
It seems a legitimate, obvious and simple question, particularly during ‘Acupuncture Awareness Week‘, and I have heard it hundreds of times. Why then do I hesitate to answer it?
Journalists – like most of us – would like a straight answer, like YES or NO. But straight answers are in short supply, particularly when we are talking about acupuncture.
Let me explain.
Acupuncture is part of ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine’ (TCM). It is said to re-balance the life forces that determine our health. As such it is seen as a panacea, a treatment for all ills. Therefore, the question, does it work?, ought to be more specific: does it work for pain, obesity, fatigue, hair-loss, addiction, anxiety, ADHA, depression, asthma, old age, etc.etc. As we are dealing with virtually thousands of ills, the question, does it work?, quickly explodes into thousands of more specific questions.
But that’s not all!
The question, does acupuncture work?, assumes that we are talking about one therapy. Yet, there are dozens of different acupuncture traditions and sites:
- body acupuncture,
- ear acupuncture,
- tongue acupuncture,
- scalp acupuncture,
- etc., etc.
Then there are dozens of different ways to stimulate acupuncture points:
- needle acupuncture,
- electroacupuncture,
- acupressure,
- moxibustion,
- ultrasound acupuncture,
- laser acupuncture,
- etc., etc.
And then there are, of course, different acupuncture ‘philosophies’ or cultures:
- TCM,
- ‘Western’ acupuncture,
- Korean acupuncture,
- Japanese acupuncture,
- etc., etc.
If we multiply these different options, we surely arrive at thousands of different variations of acupuncture being used for thousands of different conditions.
But this is still not all!
To answer the question, does it work?, we today have easily around 10 000 clinical trials. One might therefore think that, despite the mentioned complexity, we might find several conclusive answers for the more specific questions. But there are very significant obstacles that are in our way:
- most acupuncture trials are of lousy quality;
- most were conducted by lousy researchers who merely aim at showing that acupuncture works rather that testing whether it is effective;
- most originate from China and are published in Chinese which means that most of us cannot access them;
- they get nevertheless included in many of the systematic reviews that are currently being published without non-Chinese speakers ever being able to scrutinise them;
- TCM is a hugely important export article for China which means that political influence is abundant;
- several investigators have noted that virtually 100% of Chinese acupuncture trials report positive results regardless of the condition that is being targeted;
- it has been reported that about 80% of studies emerging from China are fabricated.
Now, I think you understand why I hesitate every time a journalist asks me:
DOES ACUPUNCTURE WORK?
Most journalists do not have the patience to listen to all the complexity this question evokes. Many do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend an exhaustive reply. But all want to hear a simple and conclusive answer.
So, what do I say in this situation?
Usually, I respond that the answer would depend on who one asks. An acupuncturist is likely to say: YES, OF COURSE, IT DOES! An less biased expert might reply:
IT’S COMPLEX, BUT THE MOST RELIABLE EVIDENCE IS FAR FROM CONVINCING.
These days, it has become a rare event – I am speaking of me publishing a paper in the peer-reviewed medical literature. But it has just happened: Spanish researchers and I published a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy. Here is its abstract:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of craniosacral therapy (CST) in the management of any conditions. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases in August 2023, and extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of CST. The PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were used to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence of each outcome variable was determined using GRADEpro. Quantitative synthesis was carried out with RevMan 5.4 software using random effect models.
Fifteen RCTs were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that CST produces no statistically significant or clinically relevant changes in pain and/or disability/impact in patients with headache disorders, neck pain, low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or fibromyalgia. For non-musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis showed that CST was not effective for managing infant colic, preterm infants, cerebral palsy, or visual function deficits.
We concluded that the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence suggest that CST produces no benefits in any of the musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions assessed. Two RCTs suggested statistically significant benefits of CST in children. However, both studies are seriously flawed, and their findings are thus likely to be false positive.
So, CST is not really an effective option for any condition.
Not a big surprise! After all, the assumptions on which CST is based fly in the face of science.
Since CST is nonetheless being used by many healthcare professionals, it is, I feel, important to state and re-state that CST is an implausible intervention that is not supported by clinical evidence. Hopefully then, one day, these practitioners will remember that their ethical obligation is to treat their patients not according to their beliefs but according to the best available evidence. And, hopefully, our modest paper will have helped rendering healthcare a little less irrational and somewhat more effective.
According to its authors, this study‘s objective was to demonstrate that acupuncture is beneficial for decreasing the risk of ischaemic stroke in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
The investigation was designed as a propensity score-matched cohort nationwide population-based study. Patients with RA diagnosed between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2010, through the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. Patients who were administered acupuncture therapy from the initial date of RA diagnosis to 31 December 2010 were included in the acupuncture cohort. Patients who did not receive acupuncture treatment during the same time interval constituted the no-acupuncture cohort. A Cox regression model was used to adjust for age, sex, comorbidities, and types of drugs used. The researchers compared the subhazard ratios (SHRs) of ischaemic stroke between these two cohorts through competing-risks regression models.
After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 23 226 patients with newly diagnosed RA were equally subgrouped into acupuncture cohort or no-acupuncture cohort according to their use of acupuncture. The basic characteristics of these patients were similar. A lower cumulative incidence of ischaemic stroke was found in the acupuncture cohort (log-rank test, p<0.001; immortal time (period from initial diagnosis of RA to index date) 1065 days; mean number of acupuncture visits 9.83. In the end, 341 patients in the acupuncture cohort (5.95 per 1000 person-years) and 605 patients in the no-acupuncture cohort (12.4 per 1000 person-years) experienced ischaemic stroke (adjusted SHR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.65). The advantage of lowering ischaemic stroke incidence through acupuncture therapy in RA patients was independent of sex, age, types of drugs used, and comorbidities.
The authors concluded that this study showed the beneficial effect of acupuncture in reducing the incidence of ischaemic stroke in patients with RA.
It seems obvious that the editors of ‘BMJ Open’, the peer reviewers of the study and the authors are unaware of the fact that the objective of such an investigeation is not to to demonstrate that acupuncture is beneficial but to test whether acupuncture is beneficial. Starting a study with the intention to to show that my pet therapy works is akin to saying: “I am intending to mislead you about the value of my intervention”.
One needs therefore not be surprised that the authors of the present study draw very definitive conclusions, such as “acupuncture therapy is beneficial for ischaemic stroke prevention”. But every 1st year medical or science student should know that correlation is not the same as causation. What the study does, in fact, show is an association between acupuncture and stroke. This association might be due to dozens of factors that the ‘propensity score matching’ could not control. To conclude that the results prove a cause effect relationship is naive bordering on scientific misconduct. I find it most disappointing that such a paper can pass all the hurdles to get published in what pretends to be a respectable journal.
Personally, I intend to use this study as a good example for drawing the wrong conclusions on seemingly rigorous research.
There are many variations of acupuncture. Electroacupuncture (EA) and Laseracupuncture (LA) are but two examples both of which are commonly used. However, it remains uncertain whether LA is as effective as EA. This study aimed to compare EA and LA head to head in dysmenorrhea.
A crossover, randomized clinical trial was conducted. EA or LA was applied to selected acupuncture points. Participants were randomized into two sequence treatment groups who received either EA or LA twice per week in luteal phase for 3 months followed by 2-month washout, then shifted to other groups (sequence 1: EA > LA; sequence 2: LA > EA). Outcome measures were heart rate variability (HRV), prostaglandins (PGs), pain, and quality-of-life (QoL) assessment (QoL-SF12). We also compared the effect of EA and LA in low and high LF/HF (low frequency/high frequency) status.
43 participants completed all treatments. Both EA and LA significantly improved HRV activity and were effective in reducing pain (Visual Analog Scale [VAS]; EA: p < 0.001 and LA: p = 0.010) and improving QoL (SF12: EA: p < 0.001, LA, p = 0.017); although without intergroup difference. EA reduced PGs significantly (p < 0.001; δ p = 0.068). In low LF/HF, EA had stronger effects than LA in increasing parasympathetic tone in respect of percentage of successive RR intervals that differ by more than 50 ms (pNN50; p = 0.053) and very low-frequency band (VLF; p = 0.035).
The authors concluded that there is no significant difference between EA and LA in improving autonomic nervous system dysfunction, pain, and QoL in dysmenorrhea. EA is prominent in PGs changing and preserving vagus tone in low LF/HF; yet LA is noninvasive for those who have needle phobia. Whether LA is equivalent with EA and the mechanism warrants further study.
Looking at the affiliations of the authors, one might expect that they should be able to design a meaningful study:
- 1Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Branch of Zhong-Zhou, Taipei City Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
- 2Institute of Traditional Medicine, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
- 3Department of Traditional Medicine, Branch of Yang-Ming, Taipei City Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
- 4Department of Traditional Medicine, Branch of Kunming, Taipei City Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
- 5Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Branch of Yang-Ming, Taipei City Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Sadly, this assumption is evidently mistaken.
The trial certainly does not show what they claim and neither had it ever the chance to show anything relevent. A clinical trial is comparable to a mathematical equation. It can be solved, if it has one unkown; it cannot produce a result, if it has two unknowns.
The efficacy of EA and LA for dysmenorrhea are both unknown. A comparative study with two unknowns cannot produce a meaningful result. EA and LA did not both improve autonomic nervous system dysfunction, pain, and QoL in dysmenorrhea but most likely they both had no effect. What caused the improvement was not the treatment per se but the ritual, the placebo effect, the TLC or other non-specific factors. The maginal differences in other parameters are meaningless; they are due to the fact that – as an equivalence trial – the study was woefully underpowered and thus open to coincidental differences.
Clinical trials should be about contributing to our knowledge and not about contributing to confusion.
Acute Otitis Media (AOM) is one of the most common acute infections in children and often injudiciously treated by antibiotics. Homeopathy has been claimed to work but is it really effective?
This open label, randomized, controlled, parallel arm trial was conducted on children (aged 0–12 years), suffering from AOM. The primary outcome was changes in Tympanic Membrane Examination scale (TMES) and Acute Otitis Media-Severity of Symptoms (AOM-SOS) scale, time to improvement in pain through Facial Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) over 10 days. The need for antibiotics in both groups and the recurrence of subsequent episodes of AOM over 12 months were also compared.
Intention-to-treat analysis was performed on 222 children; Homeopathy (n = 117) (H-group), Allopathy (A-group) (n = 105). There was a statistically significant reduction of scores in H-group compared with A-group at each time point: at day 3 (mean diff. ± sd: 1.71 ± 0.19; 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.07; p = 0.0001), at day 7 (mean diff. ± sd: 1.29 ± 0.24; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.76; p = 0.0001) and at day 10 (mean diff. ± sd: 1.23 ± 0.25; 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.71; p = 0.0001) favoring homeopathy. Clinical failure by the third day of treatment was observed in 11% and 24% of children in H-group vs A-group (OR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.001 to 0.52; p = 0.03). None of the children in the H-group required antibiotics, whereas 14 children in the A-group did.
The authors concluded that both therapies seemed to produce comparable effects and appeared safe. The study consolidated the findings observed during a pilot study, i.e., homeopathy is non-inferior to allopathy in managing AOM in children and antibiotics in children can be avoided.
This study was published in the journal ‘Homeopathy’ and originates from the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, New Delhi, India. Sadly, I do not have the full text of the paper and cannot therefore scrutinize it adequately.
Let me just mention these three facts:
- The journal ‘Homeopathy’ never publishes negative results.
- Indian researchers of homeopathy publish as good as no negative results.
- As far as I can see, the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, New Delhi, has never published a negative result.
These points do, of course, not necessarily mean that the study is false-positive, but they do not inspire me with confidence. In any case, it seems wise to insist on better evidence. To render it credible, we would need:
- Several rigorous RCTs that test homeopathy for AOM against placebo.
- If (and only then) they show that homeopathy is better than placebo, at least one independent replication of the present study.
As the biological plausibility of all this is close to zero, the chances that this will happen are also zero.
Current interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are efficacious, yet effectiveness may be limited by adverse effects and high withdrawal rates. Acupuncture is an intervention with some positive preliminary but methodologically flawed data for PTSD. Therefore a new study compared verum acupuncture with sham acupuncture (minimal needling) on clinical and physiological outcomes.
This was a 2-arm, parallel-group, prospective blinded randomized clinical trial hypothesizing superiority of verum to sham acupuncture. The study was conducted at a single outpatient-based site, the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center in Long Beach, California, with recruitment from April 2018 to May 2022, followed by a 15-week treatment period. Following exclusion for characteristics that are known PTSD treatment confounds, might affect biological assessment, indicate past nonadherence or treatment resistance, or indicate risk of harm, 93 treatment-seeking combat veterans with PTSD aged 18 to 55 years were allocated to group by adaptive randomization and 71 participants completed the intervention protocols.
Verum and sham were provided as 1-hour sessions, twice weekly, and participants were given 15 weeks to complete up to 24 sessions. The primary outcome was pretreatment to posttreatment change in PTSD symptom severity on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale-5 (CAPS-5). The secondary outcome was pretreatment to posttreatment change in fear-conditioned extinction, assessed by fear-potentiated startle response. Outcomes were assessed at pretreatment, midtreatment, and posttreatment. General linear models comparing within- and between-group were analyzed in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and treatment-completed models.
A total of 85 male and 8 female veterans (mean [SD] age, 39.2 [8.5] years) were randomized. There was a large treatment effect of verum (Cohen d, 1.17), a moderate effect of sham (d, 0.67), and a moderate between-group effect favoring verum (mean [SD] Δ, 7.1 [11.8]; t90 = 2.87, d, 0.63; P = .005) in the intention-to-treat analysis. The effect pattern was similar in the treatment-completed analysis: verum d, 1.53; sham d, 0.86; between-group mean (SD) Δ, 7.4 (11.7); t69 = 2.64; d, 0.63; P = .01). There was a significant pretreatment to posttreatment reduction of fear-potentiated startle during extinction (ie, better fear extinction) in the verum but not the sham group and a significant correlation (r = 0.31) between symptom reduction and fear extinction. Withdrawal rates were low.
The authors concluded that the acupuncture intervention used in this study was clinically efficacious and favorably affected the psychobiology of PTSD in combat veterans. These data build on extant literature and suggest that clinical implementation of acupuncture for PTSD, along with further research about comparative efficacy, durability, and mechanisms of effects, is warranted.
I am not sure that the authors’ enthusiastic verdict is correct. Its lead author was even quoted stating that his study, which used improved controls, was needed to “definitively” support acupuncture for PTSD. He noted that “acupuncture ought to be considered a potential first-line treatment for PTSD.”
While the study is an improvement on the previous research in this area, it is by no means compelling. My main point of criticism is the nature of the sham acupuncture. Such controls are used to account for placebo effects which, of course, can be considerable in the case of acupuncture.
For this concept to work adequately, the patient and the therapist need to be blinded. In the case of acupuncture, therapist blinding is difficult (but not impossible). In this study, therepists were not blinded. Thus they could have influenced the outcome by verbal and non-verbal clues given to the patient. As acupuncturists inevitably have an interest in the positive result of their study, this effect seems inevitable to me.
More important, however, is the adequate blinding of the patient. In this study, it was attempted by using shallow needling as a sham intervention. Yet, shallow needling can easily distinguished from real acupuncture by the patient. At the very least, patients should be asked what treatment – sham or real – they thought they had received. This did not happen, and we therefore might assume that the effect of patient de-blinding – combined with the confounder described above – was sufficient to bring about the relatively small effect sizes observed by the authors.
One might argue that this does not really matter; all that counts is to alleviate the suffering of the patients, never mind by what mechanism. I think, this would be erroneous. It matters because, if acupuncture itself is ineffective (which I suggest), settling for acupuncture as a first line therapy for PTSD is in nobody’s interest and a disservice to severely suffering patients. It would inhibit meaningful research aimed at finding an optimal therapy (one that works beyond placebo) and be a waste of resources.
