Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in hyperactive children: treatment procedure leads to an unconventional study design. Experience with open-label homeopathic treatment preceding the Swiss ADHD placebo controlled, randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with homeopathy is difficult. The Swiss randomised, placebo controlled, cross-over trial in ADHD patients (Swiss ADHD trial) was designed with an open-label screening phase prior to the randomised controlled phase. During the screening phase, the response of each child to successive homeopathic medications was observed until the optimal medication was identified. Only children who reached a predefined level of improvement participated in the randomised, cross-over phase. Although the randomised phase revealed a significant beneficial effect of homeopathy, the cross-over caused a strong carryover effect diminishing the apparent difference between placebo and verum treatment. METHODS: This retrospective analysis explores the screening phase data with respect to the risk of failure to demonstrate a specific effect of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with randomisation at the start of the treatment. RESULTS: During the screening phase, 84% (70/83) of the children responded to treatment and reached eligibility for the randomised trial after a median time of 5 months (range 1-18), with a median of 3 different medications (range 1-9). Thirteen children (16%) did not reach eligibility. Five months after treatment start, the difference in Conners Global Index (CGI) rating between responders and non-responders became highly significant (p = 0.0006). Improvement in CGI was much greater following the identification of the optimal medication than in the preceding suboptimal treatment period (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the necessity of identifying an optimal medication before response to treatment can be expected, randomisation at the start of treatment in an RCT of homeopathy in ADHD children has a high risk of failure to demonstrate a specific treatment effect, if the observation time is shorter than 12 months.

A review of antithrombotic therapy and the rationale and design of the randomized edoxaban in patients with peripheral artery disease (ePAD) trial adding edoxaban or clopidogrel to aspirin after femoropopliteal endovascular intervention.

Compared with the coronary setting, knowledge about antithrombotic therapies after endovascular treatment (EVT) is inadequate in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Based on a review of trials and guidelines, which is summarized in this article, there is scant evidence that antithrombotic drugs improve outcome after peripheral EVT. To address this knowledge gap, the randomized, open-label, multinational edoxaban in patients with Peripheral Artery Disease (ePAD) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01802775) was designed to explore the safety and efficacy of a combined regimen of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and anticoagulation with edoxaban, a selective and direct factor Xa inhibitor, both combined with aspirin. As of July 2014, 203 patients (144 men; mean age 67 years) from 7 countries have been enrolled. These patients have been allocated to once-daily edoxaban [60 mg for 3 months (or 30 mg in the presence of factors associated with increased exposure)] or clopidogrel (75 mg/d for 3 months). All patients received aspirin (100 mg/d) for the 6-month duration of the study. The primary safety endpoint is major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; the primary efficacy endpoint is restenosis or reocclusion at the treated segment(s) measured at 1, 3, and 6 months using duplex ultrasound scanning. All outcomes will be assessed and adjudicated centrally in a masked fashion. The ePAD study is the first of its kind to investigate a combined regimen of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation through factor Xa inhibition with edoxaban.

A 2-year multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled study of growth hormone (Genotropin(®) ) treatment in very young children born small for gestational age: Early Growth and Neurodevelopment (EGN) Study

OBJECTIVE In Europe, growth hormone (GH) treatment for children born small for gestational age (SGA) can only be initiated after 4 years of age. However, younger age at treatment initiation is a predictor of favourable response. To assess the effect of GH treatment on early growth and cognitive functioning in very young (<30 months), short-stature children born SGA. DESIGN A 2-year, randomized controlled, multicentre study (NCT00627523; EGN study), in which patients received either GH treatment or no treatment for 24 months. PATIENTS Children aged 19-29 months diagnosed as SGA at birth, and for whom sufficient early growth data were available, were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to GH treatment (Genotropin(®) , Pfizer Inc.) at a dose of 0·035 mg/kg/day by subcutaneous injection, or no treatment. MEASUREMENTS The primary objective was to assess the change from baseline in height standard deviation score (SDS) after 24 months of GH treatment. RESULTS Change from baseline in height SDS was significantly greater in the GH treatment vs control group at both month 12 (1·03 vs 0·14) and month 24 (1·63 vs 0·43; both P < 0·001). Growth velocity SDS was significantly higher in the GH treatment vs control group at 12 months (P < 0·001), but not at 24 months. There was no significant difference in mental or psychomotor development indices between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS GH treatment for 24 months in very young short-stature children born SGA resulted in a significant increase in height SDS compared with no treatment.