Homeopathic medicinal products for preventing and treating acute respiratory tract infections in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are common and may lead to complications. Most children experience between three and six ARTIs annually. Although most infections are self-limiting, symptoms can be distressing. Many treatments are used to control symptoms and shorten illness duration. Most treatments have minimal benefit and may lead to adverse events. Oral homeopathic medicinal products could play a role in childhood ARTI management if evidence for their effectiveness is established. This is an update of a review first published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral homeopathic medicinal products compared with placebo or conventional therapy to prevent and treat ARTIs in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3), including the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 16 March 2022), Embase (2010 to 16 March 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 16 March 2022), AMED (1985 to 16 March 2022), CAMbase (searched 16 March 2022), and British Homeopathic Library (searched 26 June 2013 - no longer operating). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (16 March 2022), checked references, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or double-blind cluster-RCTs comparing oral homeopathy medicinal products with identical placebo or self-selected conventional treatments to prevent or treat ARTIs in children aged 0 to 16 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: In this 2022 update, we identified three new RCTs involving 251 children, for a total of 11 included RCTs with 1813 children receiving oral homeopathic medicinal products or a control treatment (placebo or conventional treatment) for ARTIs. All studies focused on upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), with only one study including some lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). Six treatment studies examined the effect on URTI recovery, and five studies investigated the effect on preventing URTIs after one to four months of treatment. Two treatment and three prevention studies involved homeopaths individualising treatment. The other studies used predetermined, non-individualised treatments. All studies involved highly diluted homeopathic medicinal products, with dilutions ranging from 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-200. We identified several limitations to the included studies, in particular methodological inconsistencies and high attrition rates, failure to conduct intention-to-treat analysis, selective reporting, and apparent protocol deviations. We assessed three studies as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, and many studies had additional domains with unclear risk of bias. Four studies received funding from homeopathy manufacturers; one study support from a non-government organisation; two studies government support; one study was co-sponsored by a university; and three studies did not report funding support. Methodological inconsistencies and significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded robust quantitative meta-analysis. Only four outcomes were common to more than one study and could be combined for analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were generally small with wide confidence intervals (CI), and the contributing studies found conflicting effects, so there was little certainty that the efficacy of the intervention could be ascertained. All studies assessed as at low risk of bias showed no benefit from oral homeopathic medicinal products, whilst trials at unclear or high risk of bias reported beneficial effects. For the comparison of individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the prevention of ARTIs, two trials reported on disease severity; due to heterogeneity the data were not combined, but neither study demonstrated a clinically significant difference. We combined data from two trials for the outcome need for antibiotics (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). For the comparison of non-individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the prevention of ARTIs, only the outcome recurrence of ARTI was reported by more than one trial; data from three studies were combined for this outcome (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.72; low-certainty evidence). For the comparison of both individualised and non-individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the treatment of ARTIs, two studies provided data on short-term cure (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 19.54) and long-term cure (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.96; very low-certainty evidence). The studies demonstrated an opposite direction of effect for both outcomes. Six studies reported on disease severity but were not combined as they used different scoring systems and scales. Three studies reported adverse events (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.03; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pooling of five prevention and six treatment studies did not show any consistent benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on ARTI recurrence or cure rates in children. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low to very low for the majority of outcomes. We found no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products for ARTIs in children. Adverse events were poorly reported, and we could not draw conclusions regarding safety.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) by comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) of the first and second polar body to select embryos for transfer increase the likelihood of a live birth within 1 year in advanced maternal age women aged 36-40 years planning an ICSI cycle, compared to ICSI without chromosome analysis? SUMMARY ANSWER: PGT-A by CCS in the first and second polar body to select euploid embryos for transfer does not substantially increase the live birth rate in women aged 36-40 years. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PGT-A has been used widely to select embryos for transfer in ICSI treatment, with the aim of improving treatment effectiveness. Whether PGT-A improves ICSI outcomes and is beneficial to the patients has remained controversial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a multinational, multicentre, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Of 396 women enroled between June 2012 and December 2016, 205 were allocated to CCS of the first and second polar body (study group) as part of their ICSI treatment cycle and 191 were allocated to ICSI treatment without chromosome screening (control group). Block randomization was performed stratified for centre and age group. Participants and clinicians were blinded at the time of enrolment until the day after intervention. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile couples in which the female partner was 36-40 years old and who were scheduled to undergo ICSI treatment were eligible. In those assigned to PGT-A, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis of the first and second polar bodies of the fertilized oocytes was performed using the 24sure array of Illumina. If in the first treatment cycle all oocytes were aneuploid, a second treatment with PB array CGH was offered. Participants in the control arm were planned for ICSI without PGT-A. Main exclusion criteria were three or more previous unsuccessful IVF or ICSI cycles, three or more clinical miscarriages, poor response or low ovarian reserve. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate after fresh or frozen embryo transfer recorded over 1 year after the start of the intervention. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 205 participants in the chromosome screening group, 50 (24%) had a live birth with intervention within 1 year, compared to 45 of the 191 in the group without intervention (24%), a difference of 0.83% (95% CI: -7.60 to 9.18%). There were significantly fewer participants in the chromosome screening group with a transfer (relative risk (RR) = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.89) and fewer with a miscarriage (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.90). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The targeted sample size was not reached because of suboptimal recruitment; however, the included sample allowed a 90% power to detect the targeted increase. Cumulative outcome data were limited to 1 year. Only 11 patients out of 32 with exclusively aneuploid results underwent a second treatment cycle in the chromosome screening group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The observation that the similarity in birth rates was achieved with fewer transfers, less cryopreservation and fewer miscarriages points to a clinical benefit of PGT-A, and this form of embryo selection may, therefore, be considered to minimize the number of interventions while producing comparable outcomes. Whether these benefits outweigh drawbacks such as the cost for the patient, the higher workload for the IVF lab and the potential effect on the children born after prolonged culture and/or cryopreservation remains to be shown. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Illumina provided microarrays and other consumables necessary for aCGH testing of polar bodies. M.B.'s institution (UZBrussel) has received educational grants from IBSA, Ferring, Organon, Schering-Plough, Merck and Merck Belgium. M.B. has received consultancy and speakers' fees from Organon, Serono Symposia and Merck. G.G. has received personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, Finox, TEVA, IBSA, Glycotope, Abbott and Gedeon-Richter as well as personal fees from VitroLife, NMC Healthcare, ReprodWissen, BioSilu and ZIVA. W.V., C.S., P.M.B., V.G., G.A., M.D., T.E.G., L.G., G.Ka., G.Ko., J.L., M.C.M., M.P., A.S., M.T., K.V., J.G. and K.S. declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01532284. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 7 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 25 June 2012.

Homeopathic medicinal products for preventing and treating acute respiratory tract infections in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are common and may lead to complications. Most children experience between three and six ARTIs annually. Although these infections are self-limiting, symptoms can be distressing. Many treatments are used to control symptoms and shorten illness duration. Most have minimal benefit and may lead to adverse effects. Oral homeopathic medicinal products could play a role in childhood ARTI management if evidence for effectiveness is established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral homeopathic medicinal products compared with placebo or conventional therapy to prevent and treat acute respiratory tract infections in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 11) including the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 November 2017), Embase (2010 to 27 November 2017), CINAHL (1981 to 27 November 2017), AMED (1985 to December 2014), CAMbase (searched 29 March 2018), British Homeopathic Library (searched 26 June 2013 - no longer operating). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers (29 March 2018), checked references, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or double-blind cluster-RCTs comparing oral homeopathy medicinal products with identical placebo or self-selected conventional treatments to prevent or treat ARTIs in children aged 0 to 16 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs of 1562 children receiving oral homeopathic medicinal products or a control treatment (placebo or conventional treatment) for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). Four treatment studies examined the effect on URTI recovery, and four studies investigated the effect on preventing URTIs after one to three months of treatment, followed up for the remainder of the year. Two treatment and two prevention studies involved homeopaths individualising treatment. The other studies used predetermined, non-individualised treatments. All studies involved highly diluted homeopathic medicinal products.We found several limitations to the included studies, in particular methodological inconsistencies and high attrition rates, failure to conduct intention-to-treat analysis, selective reporting, and apparent protocol deviations. We assessed three studies as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, and many had additional domains with unclear risk of bias. Three studies received funding from homeopathy manufacturers; one support from a non-government organisation; two government support; one was cosponsored by a university; and one did not report funding support.Methodological inconsistencies and significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded robust quantitative meta-analysis. Only four outcomes were common to more than one study and could be combined for analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were generally small with wide confidence intervals (CI), and the contributing studies found conflicting effects, so there was little certainty that the efficacy of the intervention could be ascertained. All studies assessed as at low risk of bias showed no benefit from oral homeopathic medicinal products; trials at uncertain and high risk of bias reported beneficial effects.We found low-quality evidence that non-individualised homeopathic medicinal products confer little preventive effect on ARTIs (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.57). We found low-quality evidence from two individualised prevention studies that homeopathy has little impact on the need for antibiotic usage (N = 369) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.76). We also assessed adverse events, hospitalisation rates and length of stay, days off school (or work for parents), and quality of life, but were not able to pool data from any of these secondary outcomes.There is insufficient evidence from two pooled individualised treatment studies (N = 155) to determine the effect of homeopathy on short-term cure (OR 1.31 favouring placebo, 95% CI 0.09 to 19.54; very low-quality evidence) and long-term cure rates (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.67; very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were reported inconsistently; however, serious events were not reported. One study found an increase in the occurrence of non-severe adverse events in the treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pooling of two prevention and two treatment studies did not show any benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on ARTI recurrence or cure rates in children. We found no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products for ARTIs in children. Adverse events were poorly reported, so conclusions about safety could not be drawn.

Homeopathic medicinal products for preventing and treating acute respiratory tract infections in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are common and may lead to complications. Most children experience between three and six ARTIs each year. Although these infections are self limiting, the symptoms can be distressing. Many treatments are used to control symptoms and shorten the duration of illness. They often have minimal benefit and may lead to adverse effects. Oral homeopathic medicinal products could play a role in the treatment of ARTIs for children if evidence for effectiveness is established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral homeopathic medicinal products compared with placebo or conventional therapy to prevent and treat acute respiratory tract infections in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 11), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 November 2017), Embase (2010 to 27 November 2017), CINAHL (1981 to 27 November 2017), AMED (1985 to December 2014), CAMbase (searched 29 March 2018), British Homeopathic Library (searched 26 June 2013 - no longer operating). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers (29 March 2018), checked references, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or double-blind cluster-RCTs comparing oral homeopathy medicinal products with identical placebo or self selected conventional treatments to prevent or treat ARTIs in children aged 0 to 16 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs of 1562 children receiving oral homeopathic medicinal products or a control treatment (placebo or conventional treatment) for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). Four treatment studies examined the effect on recovery from URTIs, and four studies investigated the effect on preventing URTIs after one to three months of treatment and followed up for the remainder of the year. Two treatment and two prevention studies involved homeopaths individualising treatment for children. The other studies used predetermined, non-individualised treatments. All studies involved highly diluted homeopathic medicinal products.We found several key limitations to the included studies, in particular methodological inconsistencies and high attrition rates, failure to conduct intention-to-treat analysis, selective reporting, and apparent protocol deviations. We assessed three studies as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, and many had additional domains with unclear risk of bias. Three studies received funding from homeopathy manufacturers; one reported support from a non-government organisation; two received government support; one was cosponsored by a university; and one did not report funding support.Methodological inconsistencies and significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded robust quantitative meta-analysis. Only four outcomes were common to more than one study and could be combined for analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were generally small with wide confidence intervals (CI), and the contributing studies found conflicting effects, so there was little certainty that the efficacy of the intervention could be ascertained. All studies assessed as at low risk of bias showed no benefit from oral homeopathic medicinal products; trials at uncertain and high risk of bias reported beneficial effects.We found low-quality evidence that non-individualised homeopathic medicinal products confer little preventive effect on ARTIs (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.57). We found low-quality evidence from two individualised prevention studies that homeopathy has little impact on the need for antibiotic usage (N = 369) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.76). We also assessed adverse events, hospitalisation rates and length of stay, days off school (or work for parents), and quality of life, but were not able to pool data from any of these secondary outcomes.There is insufficient evidence from two pooled individualised treatment studies (N = 155) to determine the effect of homeopathy on short-term cure (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 19.54; very low-quality evidence) and long-term cure rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.96; very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were reported inconsistently; however, serious events were not reported. One study found an increase in the occurrence of non-severe adverse events in the treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pooling of two prevention and two treatment studies did not show any benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on recurrence of ARTI or cure rates in children. We found no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products for ARTIs in children. Adverse events were poorly reported, so conclusions about safety could not be drawn.

A protocol for a trial of homeopathic treatment for irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome is a chronic condition with no known cure. Many sufferers seek complementary and alternative medicine including homeopathic treatment. However there is much controversy as to the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment. This three-armed study seeks to explore the effectiveness of individualised homeopathic treatment plus usual care compared to both an attention control plus usual care and usual care alone, for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial using the cohort multiple randomised trial methodology. Patients are recruited to an irritable bowel syndrome cohort from primary and secondary care using GP databases and consultants lists respectively. From this cohort patients are randomly selected to be offered, 5 sessions of homeopathic treatment plus usual care, 5 sessions of supportive listening plus usual care or usual care alone. The primary clinical outcome is the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptom Severity at 26 weeks.From a power calculation, it is estimated that 33 people will be needed for the homeopathic treatment arm and 132 for the usual care arm, to detect a minimal clinical difference at 80 percent power and 5 percent significance allowing for loss to follow up. An unequal group size has been used for reasons of cost. Analysis will be by intention to treat and will compare homeopathic treatment with usual care at 26 weeks as the primary analysis, and homeopathic treatment with supportive listening as an additional analysis. DISCUSSION: This trial has received NHS approval and results are expected in 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90651143.

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

BACKGROUND: Homeopathic drug proving is a basic concept in homeopathy. This study aimed to record symptoms produced by a homeopathic drug compared with placebo. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01061229.