|
This trial arose from the Data Collection Study carried out in
the 6 months between 1st January 2005 and 30th June 2005. Full details
of that study were published in Homeopathy (2007) Vol. 96, pp. 27-34.
A brief summary of the outcome is that during a 6 month period,
8 veterinary members of the Faculty of Homeopathy recorded details
of every consultation they made, and in the case of follow-up consultations
they recorded the outcome on the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital 7-point
Likert scale(-3 to +3). There were 4 canine conditions that showed
a +2 or +3 score in 50% or more of the cases, one of which was Canine
Atopic Dermatitis [CAD].
It was then suggested that CAD would be a candidate for further
investigation. I pointed out that the first point of contention
would be “How do you know that you were actually treating
atopic dogs, and not any other skin condition?” I therefore
wrote to the secretary of the British Veterinary Dermatology Study
Group asking how one made a definitive diagnosis of Atopic Dermatitis.
He referred me on to Dr. Peter Hill. Peter is the Senior Lecturer
in Veterinary Dermatology at the University of Bristol and is also
the Chairman of the Atopy Committee of the BVDSG. I contacted Peter
quoting our statistics and asked for advice on the diagnosis of
atopy. He replied, suggesting a meeting at which Robert Mathie,
the Faculty of Homeopathy Research Development Adviser, made a small
presentation of the Data Collection statistics.
Peter said that if we could demonstrate results half as good as
those obtained in the study he would be very surprised. So, for
the last 16 months or so Peter and I have been carrying out a preliminary
trial into the effectiveness of homeopathy (as practiced by me)
in the treatment of CAD. Briefly the protocol that has been developed
is that Peter, or one of his assistants, makes the diagnosis. The
client is then offered the chance to participate in the trial. If
they accept they are given three month’s free homeopathic
treatment at Langford. To give the trial a more acceptable ‘scientific’
face, Peter has developed an “Itch Score” chart for
use in the trial. It comprises a visual analogue scale combined
with written descriptions of itch manifestations and has been published
in Vet Dermatol. 2007 Oct.(5): 301-8. As a side benefit, the scale
has been used to determine the level of itchiness in ‘normal’
dogs by asking the owners of dogs attending Langford for other than
skin conditions. It has also been used to assess the level of itchiness
with which an owner of an atopic dog would be satisfied. These data
will be published in the near future. It looks as though the average
owner would settle for a residual itch score just slightly higher
than that of a ‘normal’ dog.
Peter has also developed a “Lesion Score” sheet which
allows a severity score to be made for all types of skin lesion
at all possible sites on the body. This too is to be published soon.
It was developed because there often appears to be no relationship
between the severity of the lesions and their itchiness; a phenomenon
represented by the rubric “SKIN: Itching: eruptions, without”
in the homeopathic world. As Peter says, the majority of owners
are more concerned about the degree of itchiness than the presence
of minor skin lesions such as redness, rashes and pimples. It may
be that in the future it could be used to verify that Hering’s
Law does apply to canine skin lesions.
The only criteria for eligibility to enter the trial is that Peter
has made a diagnosis of CAD. There are no criteria for prevention
of entry. The owner then scores the dog’s itchiness and I
make a normal full homeopathic consultation. There are no restrictions
on my prescribing. I am allowed to prescribe any homeopathic remedy,
in any potency at any frequency I wish. There are follow up consultations
at 30, 60 and 90 days at which the Itch Score is taken, the case
is re-assessed and a further prescription made if needed.
I have been impressed by the seriousness which Peter has brought
to the project. At the beginning he knew nothing about veterinary
homeopathy. He has, however, come to realize that the basic differences
between conventional and homeopathic medicine make normal Blind
Trials impossible to set up. He did, however, notice that some dogs
appeared to require a repeat dose now and again. As an add-on to
the original trial we have tried, once the remedy was positively
identified, giving two bottles to the owner – one containing
the remedy and one placebo– to see if the owner can tell a
difference in the patient’s response to the two. It might
be that this will be a way forward for those who need to see the
results of ‘blind’ trials before they can be convinced
of any effectiveness.
Peter has also come up with the concept of “The Perception
of Illness”. I may perceive a dog to be getting better if
the itch moves from head to tail, he will only see improvement if
the itch score itself is reduced, even if the itch moves from rump
to ears. The owner may also say that the dog looks a lot better
even though the itch score remains constant. Peter wonders if the
dog is scratching just as much, but is not so bothered by it; or
if the owner is not so bothered by the degree of scratching because
he/she knows that the dog is receiving homeopathic treatment, or
even if Hering’s Law is valid. This will have to be discussed
between us at some stage.
Another interesting by-product of the trial is that 4th and Final
Year Students are allowed to sit in on my consultations. The students
fulfil the whole range of attitudes towards homeopathy. This does
result in some meaningful discussions after the consultation ends.
Peter also points out my use of MacRepertory to them. One of the
points he makes, and which I had not appreciated before he did so,
is that our conventional colleagues have nothing like MacRep or
Radar to help them. “Why” he asks “would anyone
go to the trouble and expense of producing such a program if they
thought that they were only prescribing placebos? Even if they are
mistaken, they must believe that homeopathy works!”
It has taken 16 months to enroll the 20 cases that we wanted for
the preliminary trial. Some of them, though, have not finished their
course of treatment. Neither Peter nor I wish to give any indication
of the degree of success or failure that we have seen. The politics
of the profession make this a very sensitive issue, and we want
to be sure that anything we publish is robust and able to withstand
intense scrutiny. Both Peter and I have learned a lot from this
preliminary study. We both hope that it will justify going on to
a definitive trial, and we both know the many points of contention
and are thinking of ways to overcome those difficulties.
For my part, I have learned a great deal from working with Peter.
I cannot emphasize too much just how much effort he has put into
trying to make the project acceptable to both sides of the argument.
I hope that we will have the chance to take it further, possibly
even as a multi-centre project. If it has taken 16 months to enroll
20 cases, not all of which would have been suitable for the ‘Placebo
phase’, how long would it take us to recruit a meaningful
number? We would also be running up against the problem of funding.
This trial so far has been run on a shoe-string. Langford has not
charged for use of its facilities, I have given my time for nothing,
and the Faculty of Homeopathy has kindly reimbursed my expenses.
I have really enjoyed this, my first direct exposure to scientific
evaluation of homeopathy. I have also enjoyed the co-operation of
a first class scientist, with a truly open scientific mind. I just
hope that the paper, when it is published, will go some way to supporting
what I believe to be a wonderful medical therapy.
-----------------------------------------------
By John Hoare, mrcvs
veterinary surgeon, homeopath United kingdom
|