University of B…

Does additional antimicrobial treatment have a better effect on URTI cough resolution than homeopathic symptomatic therapy alone? A real-life preliminary observational study in a pediatric population

Cliccare per credere.

Autori:

Zanasi A1, Cazzato S2, Mazzolini M3, Ierna CM3, Mastroroberto M4, Nardi E4, Morselli-Labate AM4.

• 1 Italian Association for Cough Study (AIST) – e università di Bologna
• 2 Department of Pediatrics, University of Bologna
• 3  Respiratory Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Sant’Orsola Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna.
• 4 Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna

OBJECTIVES
The aims were: 1) to assess whether the addition of antibiotics to a symptomatic treatment had a role in reducing the severity and duration of acute cough in a pediatric population, as well as in improving cough resolution; 2) to verify the safety of the two treatments.
RESULTS
Cough VCD score was significantly (P?<?0.001) reduced in both groups starting from the second day of treatment (-0.52±0.66 in the homeopathic syrup group and -0.56±0.55 in children receiving homeopathic syrup plus oral antibiotic treatment). No significant differences in cough severity or resolution were found between the two groups of children in any of the 28 days of the study. After the first week (day 8) cough was completely resolved in more than one-half of patients in both groups. Two children (4.3 %) reported adverse effects in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup alone, versus 9 children (23.1 %) in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotics (P=0.020). 
CONCLUSIONS
Our data confirm that the homeopathic treatment in question has potential benefits for cough in children as well, and highlight the strong safety profile of this treatment. Additional antibiotic prescription was not associated with a greater cough reduction, and presented more adverse events than the homeopathic syrup alone.

Ma
– il campione è piccolo e vario, le p values non sono significative, agg. 12/8 e i risultati riportati nell’articolo smentiscono l’abstract:
 Cough resolution began on Day 4 (8.7 % in Group 1  – Boiron, ndr – and 5.1 % in Group 2 – Boiron+ antibiotici, ndr) and continued progressively through the entire study period. In particular, after the first week (Day 8) cough was completely resolved in more than one-half of patients in both groups (58.7 % in Group 1 and 53.8 % in Group 2), while 22% of patients in Group 1 and 17.9% of patients in Group 2 were still coughing at Day 21. Cough was still reported in 8 patients of Group 1 (17.4%) and in 5 patients of Group 2 (12.8%) at the end of the observation…

– gli eventi avversi degli antibiotici sono noti da decenni;
– lo sciroppo Stodal della Boiron è “compatibile con il principio dell’omeopatia, secondo la multinazionale infatti contiene (grassetto mio)

Bryonia cretica 3 CH, Cephaelis ipecacuanha 3 CH, Dactylopius coccus 3 CH, Drosera TM, Euspongia officinalis 3 CH, Kalii stibyli tartras 6 CH, Lobaria pulmonaria 3 CH, Pulsatilla pratensis 6 CH, Rumex crispus 6 CH (950 mg di ogni ingrediente per 100 g di sciroppo). Eccipienti: saccarosio (6 g/10 g), acqua, colorante E150 (caramello), conservante E210 (acido benzoico) e alcool (0,3% V/V).

Come tutti sanno, per essere “potente” e quindi efficace, la tintura madre deve avere diluizioni superiori a 50-100 CH, ogni diluizione deve essere succussa su una Bibbia rilegata in cuoio, e rigorosamente priva di additivi industriali.

– mancano le cause delle infezioni (virus? batteri? boh?);

– gli autori si giustificano così:
As far as the limitations of the research are concerned, a major weakness of our study arises from the observational design that we applied in this appraisal. Thus we did not considered a placebo group since the main goal of our research was not the effectiveness of homeopatic syrup but it was to evaluate the role of additional antibiotic.

ma lo “scopo principale” non viene nemmeno sfiorato, d’altronde al secondo gruppo sono stati somministrati tre antibiotici diversi, per diagnosi ignote (infezioni batteriche? virali?) e con composizioni e dosaggi ignoti.

Gli autori annunciano nuove ricerche. Perché restano da valutare quelli del presente studio, e di quello “double-blind randomized” che lo ha preceduto, per la Boiron?
(h/t Ivan Oransky)

*

Altre letture estive
Dopo i Labs bloopers primaverili, The Scientist colleziona i Field bloopers.
And the pièce de résistance, Agata Staniewicz: “Accidentally glued myself to a crocodile while attaching a radio transmitter.”
Oh dear…