Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that homoeopathy is a placebo by examining its effect in patients with allergic rhinitis and so contest the evidence from three previous trials in this series. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multicentre study. SETTING: Four general practices and a hospital ear, nose, and throat outpatient department. PARTICIPANTS: 51 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. INTERVENTION: Random assignment to an oral 30c homoeopathic preparation of principal inhalant allergen or to placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline in nasal inspiratory peak flow and symptom visual analogue scale score over third and fourth weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: Fifty patients completed the study. The homoeopathy group had a significant objective improvement in nasal airflow compared with the placebo group (mean difference 19.8 l/min, 95% confidence interval 10.4 to 29.1, P=0.0001). Both groups reported improvement in symptoms, with patients taking homoeopathy reporting more improvement in all but one of the centres, which had more patients with aggravations. On average no significant difference between the groups was seen on visual analogue scale scores. Initial aggravations of rhinitis symptoms were more common with homoeopathy than placebo (7 (30%) v 2 (7%), P=0.04). Addition of these results to those of three previous trials (n=253) showed a mean symptom reduction on visual analogue scores of 28% (10.9 mm) for homoeopathy compared with 3% (1.1 mm) for placebo (95% confidence interval 4.2 to 15.4, P=0.0007). CONCLUSION: The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo.

Multifaceted shared care intervention for late life depression in residential care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a population based, multifaceted shared care intervention for late life depression in residential care. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial, with control and intervention groups studied one after the other and blind follow up after 9.5 months. SETTING: Population of residential facility in Sydney living in self care units and hostels. PARTICIPANTS: 220 depressed residents aged >/=65 without severe cognitive impairment. INTERVENTION: The shared care intervention included: (a) multidisciplinary consultation and collaboration, (b) training of general practitioners and carers in detection and management of depression, and (c) depression related health education and activity programmes for residents. The control group received routine care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Geriatric depression scale. RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis was used. There was significantly more movement to "less depressed" levels of depression at follow up in the intervention than control group (Mantel-Haenszel stratification test, P=0.0125). Multiple linear regression analysis found a significant intervention effect after controlling for possible confounders, with the intervention group showing an average improvement of 1.87 points on the geriatric depression scale compared with the control group (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 2.97, P=0.0011). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of depression among elderly people in residential care can be improved by multidisciplinary collaboration, by enhancing the clinical skills of general practitioners and care staff, and by providing depression related health education and activity programmes for residents.

How to help depressed older people living in residential care: a multifaceted shared-care intervention for late-life depression.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a population-based, multifaceted shared-care intervention for late-life depression in residential care as a new model of geriatric practice, to outline its development and implementation, and to describe the lessons learned during the implementation process. SETTING: A large continuing-care retirement community in Sydney, Australia, providing three levels of care (independent living units, assisted-living complexes, and nursing homes). PARTICIPANTS: The intervention was implemented for the entire non-nursing home population (residents in independent and assisted living: N = 1,466) of the facility and their health care providers. Of the 1,036 residents whowere eligible and agreed to be interviewed, 281 (27.1%) were classified as depressed according to the Geriatric Depression Scale. INTERVENTION DESCRIPTION: The intervention included: (a) multidisciplinary collaboration between primary care physicians, facility health care providers, and the local psychogeriatric service; (b) training for primary care physicians and other facility health care providers about detecting and managing depression; and (c) depression-related health education/promotion programs for residents. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was widely accepted by residents and their health care providers, and was sustained and enhanced by the facility after the completion of the study. It is possible to implement and sustain a multifaceted shared-care intervention for late-life depression in a residential care facility where local psychogeriatric services are scarce, staff-to-resident ratios are low, and the needs of depressed residents are substantial.