Protocol for a phase 1 homeopathic drug proving trial

Michael Teut, Ute Hirschberg, Rainer Luedtke, Cristoph Schnegg, Joern Dahler, Henning Albrecht, Claudia M Witt, Michael Teut, Ute Hirschberg, Rainer Luedtke, Cristoph Schnegg, Joern Dahler, Henning Albrecht, Claudia M Witt

Abstract

Background: This study protocol adapts the traditional homeopathic drug proving methodology to a modern clinical trial design.

Method: 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.

Discussion: 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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01061229.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Organisation process in homeopathic drug proving.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow of participants through the homeopathic drug proving trial.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Data analysis process in homeopathic drug proving trial.

References

    1. Dantas F, Fisher P, Walach H, Wieland F, Rastogi DP, Texeira H, Koster D, Jansen JP, Eizayaga J, Alvarez MEP, Marim M, Belon P, Weckx LLM. A systematic review of the quality of homoeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995. Homoeopathy. 2007;96:4–16. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2006.11.005.
    1. European Committee for Homoeopathy. Homoeopathic drug proving guidelines. Brussels 2004. Latest Download on July 22nd 2010.
    1. Teut M, Dahler J, Lucae C, Koch U. Kursbuch Homöopathie. Urban und Fischer, München; 2008.
    1. Walach H. Naturheilverfahren und Unkonventionelle Medizinische Richtungen. Bd. 4. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg; 2005. Methoden der Homöopathischen Arzneimittelprüfung, Teil 1: Historische Entwicklung und Stand der Forschung. In: Bühring M, Kemper FH.
    1. Walach H. Wissenschaftliche Homöopathische Arzneimittelprüfung. Doppelblinde Crossover-Studie einer homöopathischen Hochpotenz gegen Placebo. Haug, Heidelberg; 1992.
    1. Möllinger H, Schneider R, Löffel M, Walach H. A double-blind, randomized, homeopathic pathogenetic trial with healthy persons: comparing two high potencies. Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2004;11:274–280. doi: 10.1159/000082120.
    1. Walach H, Sherr J, Schneider R, Shabi R, Bond G, Rieberer G. Homoeopathic proving symptoms: result of a local, non-local, or placebo-process? A blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study. Homoeopathy. 2004;93:179–185. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2004.07.006.
    1. Möllinger H, Schneider R, Walach H. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials produce specific symptoms different from placebo. Forsch Komplementärmed. 2009;16(2):105–110. doi: 10.1159/000209386.
    1. Walach H, Möllinger H, Sherr J, Schneider R. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials produce more specific than non-specific symptoms: results from two double-blind placebo controlled trials. J Psychopharmacol. 2008;22(5):543–552. doi: 10.1177/0269881108091259.
    1. Teut M, Dahler J, Schnegg C. Wilsede Study Group for Homoeopathic Provings. A homoeopathic proving of Galphimia glauca. Forsch Komplementärmed. 2008;15(4):211–217. doi: 10.1159/000148825.
    1. Walach H. In: New directions in homeopathic research. Witt C, Albrcht H, editor. KVC, Essen; 2009. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials - a summary of 20 years of refelection, data collection, and analysis.
    1. Wieland F. Good homoeopathic provings, the need for GHP guidelines. A brief survey of recent developments in methodology of homoeopathic drug provings in Europe. Brit Hom J. 1997;86(4):229–234. doi: 10.1016/S0007-0785(97)80050-6.
    1. Wieland F. Homöopathische Arzneimittelprüfungen, Methodologie und Praxis. Haug Verlag, Stuttgart. 2003.
    1. International Council for Classical Homoeopathy (ICCH) Recommended guidelines for good provings. Hom Links. 1999;12(1):33–36.
    1. Bleul G. Homöopathische Arzneimittelprüfungen. DZVHAE Konsensus 1998-2000. Schriftenreihe des Europäischen Instituts für Homöopathie (InHom); 1. Auflage; Köthen (Anhalt) 2002.
    1. Sherr J. Dynamics and Methodology of Homoeopathic Provings. Dynamis School, London; 1994.
    1. Homöopathisches Arzneibuch 2009 (HAB 2009). Amtliche Ausgabe. Deutscher Apotheker Verlag, Stuttgart; 2009.
    1. Mayring Ph. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 7. Deutscher Studien Verlag, Weinheim; 2000.
    1. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputations for Nonresponse in Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, New York; 1987.
    1. European Committee for Homoeopathy. ECH position paper: are homeopathic provings comparable to conventional clinical trials? Version 1. Brussels; 2005.
    1. Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte. Bekanntmachung über die Zulassung, Nachzulassung und Registrierung von Arzneimitteln (Empfehlungen der Kommission D nach §25 Abs. 6 und Abs. 7 des Arzneimittelgesetzes zur Planung und Durchführung homöopathischer Arzneimittelprüfungen) vom 18.11.1998. Latest Download on July 22nd, 2010.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi