A homeopathic Immunotherapy Treatment For Asthma?

Some studies have recently been published showing
A positive effect (superior to placebo) products
homeopathic treatment. This would also be the case for
Patients with asthma or allergy. It
However, the majority of studies with fewer patients and
With the results often not obvious, as
Shows a methodical synthesis (systematic review) 2.
The study, properly handled, is randomized, double
Blind, versus placebo. The authors are studying the effectiveness
A homeopathic vaccine in asthmatic patients
Allergic to dust mites. The criteria for judgement
Are parameters clinics and welfare
Patient. Patients were recruited from 38 practices
General medicine in England. Patients are
Labelled asthmatics based on several criteria
: Randomization, need to improve
15% of their VEMS 15 minutes after inhalation
200 micrograms of salbutamol, two of the three
Criteria for a daily score of asthma, or a variation
Nycthémérale the peak flow of
More than 15%, or appeal necessary for salbutamol
For at least 7 days during the previous 2 weeks préinclusion.
The subjects of a skin reaction
Positive (greater than 3 mm greater than
Control) were found positive for mites.
Included are randomized and throughout the study,
242 patients with asthma and allergic to dust mites.
One group receives a homeopathic vaccine, the other one
Placebo. At the end of the study, there are still 101 patients in
Each of the 2 groups, the results of which are analyzed.
The judgement criteria are the primary and VEMS
Quality of life. This assessment takes place every
Four weeks up to and including the 16th week.
No difference was observed for these criteria
Between the two groups. The authors conclude that
This study reveals no positive effect of this treatment
Homeopathy versus placebo among
Asthma patients allergic to dust mites.

 

This study is being conducted in accordance with the rules of art. A period of wash-out of four weeks is respected and
Results are analyzed according to the method intention-to-treat. Only included allergic asthma patients
To dust mites. The definitions used are clearly described. Patients were randomized but the technique
However, is not precisely described. The first 10 patients were randomised according to a system of envelopes
Closed and the following patients were divided according to age, sex, tobacco use, the severity of
Asthma, and so on. (Quasi-randomized). Treatment is with double-blind evaluation of the accuracy of prognosis
The doctor and patient on the type of treatment received (placebo or homeopathy). The criteria for judgement
Secondary show a worsening compared to placebo (on a scale analog for asthma and
Mood) during the first weeks of treatment with homeopathic product, but this difference vanishes
Then under investigation. This leads a discussion on the possibility of an error of type 1 (affirming
Inaccurate that a difference between the two interventions). So far, it is a classic study protocol. The
Reactions to this article have illustrated, once again, the significant gap between doctors and homeopaths "classic".
This study does not take into account individual patients (the perpetrators would have had to give 242 different treatments,
Individualized) has been made in general medicine and not in a homeopathic, definitions
Are not correct, and so on. A search of the literature does not provide more information. This
Summarizes the whole debate and all other issues remain raised. The discussion between "supporters" and "non -
Supporters "remains current. Epidemiologists "classic" have established a framework for developing
Good clinical trials for medicine, but, as homeopaths, this technique can not be applied
On their land. As physicians, we must ask ourselves about our salaries, that we are "classic
"Or" training "homeopaths. Provide evidence that a treatment is effective or not, and that this effect
Clinically relevant forms an integral part of good medical practice, for homeopaths également3.