Search

Abstract Background Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) frequently use homeopathic therapy. Although there is some evidence that homeopathy may be effective in treating symptoms of SAR, there is a lack of high-quality clinical trials. Therefore, the aim of the homeopathy for SAR (HOMEOSAR) trial is to determine the efficacy of individualized or standardized homeopathic drug treatment compared to placebo regarding rhinitis-related quality of life in patients with SAR. Methods This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-armed intervention study will be conducted at two university hospital outpatient clinics for complementary and integrative medicine in Berlin and in 12 office-based practices specializing in homeopathic treatment in Germany. A total of 270 patients with clinical symptoms of SAR and positive allergy test to birch and grass pollen will receive homeopathic anamnesis and subsequently be randomized into (a) standardized homeopathic drug treatment with Galphimia Glauca (potency D6), (b) individualized homeopathic drug treatment (D6), or (c) placebo. All three groups can receive on-demand rescue medication as needed. Treatment will consist of two consultations and daily intake of the study medication for 4 weeks during the pollen season. The primary outcome is the mean overall score of the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) in weeks 3 and 4, analyzed using analysis of covariance (adjusted for baseline RQLQ overall score and study center). A closed testing procedure will be used to control the overall type I error comparing the 3 treatment groups. Secondary outcomes include the overall RQLQ and its seven domain scores, responder status (decrease in RQLQ overall score of at least 0.5 points compared to the baseline value), use of rescue medication, intensity of total and individual SAR symptoms based on visual analog scale, generic health-related quality of life, safety, utilization of health care resources and associated costs. In addition, a qualitative data analysis is planned. Conclusion The results of our study will contribute to clarifying the possible therapeutic effects of homeopathic drug treatment for patients with SAR. Trial registration This study has been registered in the German Clinical Trial Registry with trial ID DRKS00018081 on June 09, 2020.

Abstract Background Acupuncture is used to treat patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy; however, the evidence is unclear. We present the design and methodology of the ACUDPN (ACUpuncture in Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy) trial, which investigates the effectiveness of acupuncture for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) symptoms. The aim of this study is to investigate whether acupuncture is effective for the treatment of DPN symptoms. Methods This study is a two-armed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, open-label, confirmatory, multicenter trial (8-week intervention period plus 16 weeks of follow-up). Physicians in outpatient units in Germany who specialize in acupuncture treatment will treat 110 diabetes type II patients with clinical symptoms of peripheral neuropathy in the feet and legs with signs of neuropathy according to nerve conduction testing. The patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the following two groups: (a) semi-standardized acupuncture plus routine care or (b) routine care alone. Acupuncture will consist of 12 treatments per patient over 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be the overall DPN-related complaints in the extremities after 8 weeks as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Further outcome measures will include DPN-related pain, the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Impact (DPNPI) scores, and nerve conduction parameters of the sural nerve at weeks 8, 16, and 24. Discussion The results of this trial will be available in 2021 and will help clarify whether acupuncture can be considered effective for the treatment of DPN with regard to the subdimensions of the neuropathic clinical picture. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03755960 . Registered on 11 August 2018.

Abstract Background We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of two different forms of dry pulsatile cupping in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) compared to medication on demand only in a three-armed randomized trial. Methods 110 cLBP patients were randomized to regular pulsatile cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n = 37), minimal cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n = 36) or the control group with paracetamol on demand only (n = 37). Primary outcome was the pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0–100 mm) after 4 weeks, secondary outcome parameter included VAS pain intensity after 12 weeks, back function as measured with the ‘Funktionsfragebogen Hannover Rücken’ (FFbH-R) and health related quality of life questionnaire Short form 36 (SF-36) after 4 and 12 weeks. Results The mean baseline-adjusted VAS after 4 weeks was 34.9 mm (95% CI: 28.7; 41.2) for pulsatile cupping, 40.4 (34.2; 46.7) for minimal cupping and 56.1 (49.8; 62.4) for control group, resulting in statistically significant differences between pulsatile cupping vs. control (21.2 (12.2; 30.1); p

Abstract Background Although hypnosis and hypnotherapy have become more popular in recent years, the evidence for hypnosis to influence perceived stress is unclear. In this systematic review we searched and evaluated randomized clinical studies investigating the effect of hypnosis on perceived stress reduction and coping. Methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX and PubMed were systematically screened from their inception until December 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting about hypnosis or hypnotherapy for stress reduction in healthy participants. Risk of Bias was assessed according the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Results Nine RCTs with a total of 365 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Most included participants were medical students, predominantly female (n = 211). Mean age of participants ranged in most studies between 20 and 25 years, in three studies the mean ages were between 30 and 42 years. Perceived stress was measured by a wide range of psychological questionnaires including Face Valid Stress Test, Stress Thermometer, and immunological data was collected. All nine included studies used explorative designs and showed a high risk of bias. Six out of nine studies reported significant positive effects of hypnosis for stress reduction in the main outcome parameter compared to control groups (3 active controls, 3 no therapy controls). Immunological outcomes were assessed in six studies, the results were inconclusive. Conclusions Due to exploratory designs and high risk of bias, the effectiveness of hypnosis or hypnotherapy in stress reduction remains still unclear. More high quality clinical research is urgently needed.