Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997 Jul;35(7):296-301
In a prospective observational study carried out by 1 homoeopathic and 4 conventional ENT practitioners, the 2 methods of treating acute pediatric otitis media were compared. Group A received treatment with homoeopathic single remedies (Aconitum napellus, Apis mellifica, Belladonna, Capsicum, Chamomilla, Kalium bichromicum, Lachesis, Lycopodium, Mercurius solubilis, Okoubaka, Pulsatilla, Silicea), whereas group B received nasal drops, antibiotics, secretolytics and/or antipyretics. The main outcome measures were duration of pain, duration of fever, and the number of recurrences after 1 year, whereby alpha < 0.05 was taken as significance level. The secondary measures were improvement after 3 hours, results of audiometry and tympanometry, and necessity for additional therapy. These parameters were only considered descriptively. The study involved 103 children in group A and 28 children in group B, aged between 6 months and 11 years in both groups. For duration of pain, the median was 2 days in group A and 3 days in group B. For duration of therapy, the median was 4 days in group A and 10 days in group B: this is due to the fact that antibiotics are usually administered over a period of 8-10 days, whereas homoeopathics can be discontinued at an earlier stage once healing has started. Of the children treated, 70.7% were free of recurrence within a year in group A and 29.3% were found to have a maximum of 3 recurrences. In group B, 56.5% were free of recurrence, and 43.5% had a maximum of 6 recurrences. Out of the 103 children in group A, 5 subsequently received antibiotics, though homoeopathic treatment was carried through to the healing stage in the remaining 98. No permanent sequels were observed in either group.
Publication Types:
PMID: 9247843, UI: 97391008
J R Soc Med 1997 Feb;90(2):73-78
Homoeopathic potencies of arnica have been used for many years to aid postoperative recovery. The effects of arnica C30 on pain and postoperative recovery after total abdominal hysterectomy were evaluated in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study. Of 93 women entered into the study, 20 did not complete protocol treatment: nine were excluded because they failed to comply with the protocol, nine had their operations cancelled or changed within 24 h and two had to be withdrawn because of the recurrence of previously chronic painful conditions. Those who did not complete protocol treatment were equally divided between the arnica (nine patients) and placebo groups (11 patients). 73 patients completed the study, of whom 35 received placebo and 38 received arnica C30. The placebo group had a greater median age and the arnica group had slightly longer operations; nevertheless, no significant difference between the two groups could be demonstrated. We conclude that arnica in homoeopathic potency had no effect on postoperative recovery in the context of our study.
Comments:
PMID: 9068434, UI: 97221388
Dermatology 1996;193(4):318-320
BACKGROUND: Despite the wide practical application of homoeopathy, scientific proof of its effectiveness and mechanisms is still lacking, and sound, placebo-controlled studies are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of homoeopathy in a prospective, double-blind randomized trial. METHODS: 60 children aged 6-12 years with common warts on the back of the hands were treated either with an individually selected homoeopathic preparation (n = 30) of at least a 1:1,012 dilution or with pure placebo in the form of saccharose globuli (n = 30) under double-blind conditions. The area occupied by warts was measured by computerized planimetry before and after 8 weeks of treatment. Reduction of the warty area by at least 50% was considered a response. RESULTS: There were a total of 16 responders: 9 of 30 patients in the homoeopathic therapy group and 7 of 30 patients in the placebo group (chi 2 = 0.34, p = 0.56). Total cure of warts occurred in 5 patients in the treated group and in 1 patient in the placebo group (chi 2 = 1.46, p = 0.22). CONCLUSION: There was no apparent difference between the effects of homoeopathic therapy and placebo in children with common warts under the conditions of this study.
PMID: 8993956, UI: 97147100
BMJ 1995 Jun 3;310(6992):1439-1442
OBJECTIVE--To examine whether homoeopathy has any effect on pain and other inflammatory events after surgery. DESIGN--Randomised double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial with "identical" oral surgical procedures performed on two separate occasions in 24 patients. INTERVENTIONS--Treatment started 3 hours after surgery with either homoeopathy or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Postoperative pain and preference for postoperative course assessed by patients on visual analogue scales. Measurements of postoperative swelling and reduction in ability to open mouth. Assessment of bleeding after surgery. RESULTS--Pain after surgery was essentially the same whether treated with homoeopathy or placebo. Postoperative swelling was not significantly affected by homoeopathy, but treatment tended to give less reduction in ability to open mouth. No noticeable difference was seen in postoperative bleeding, side effects, or complaints. Thirteen of the 24 patients preferred the postoperative course with placebo. CONCLUSIONS--No positive evidence was found for efficacy of homoeopathic treatment on pain and other inflammatory events after an acute soft tissue and bone injury inflicted by a surgical intervention. Differences in the order of 30% to 40% would have been needed to show significant effects.
PMID: 7613277, UI: 95337913
Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1995;49(1-2):103-108
A randomised, placebo controlled clinical trial was conducted to examine the efficacy of a homeopathic after-bite gel in the symptomatic relief of mosquito bites. Sixty eight healthy volunteers were bitten under laboratory conditions by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes at three spots, on the ventral aspect of the forearm. One bite was treated with the homeopathic after-bite gel, another bite with a placebo gel which was identical in appearance and smell to the homeopathic after-bite gel, and the third bite remained untreated. Immediately after the bites and 1, 3, 6, 26 and 31 hours post-bite, the length and width of the erythema were measured with a calliper, and photographs were taken of the bite sites from which the size of the erythema was subsequently determined. This was followed by assessment of the extent of itching with a verbal analogue scale, and finally treatment took place. For each spot the total erythema was calculated as the area under the plotted curve of the erythema at different time points (mm2*h) and the total sum of the itch scores was determined. For the bites treated with the homeopathic after-bite gel the median total erythema was 10.500 mm2*h. For the spots treated with the placebo gel and the untreated spots the median total erythema was 12.900 mm2*h and 13.300 mm2*h, respectively. The difference between the spots treated with the homeopathic after-bite gel and the untreated spots came close to significance (two-tailed P = 0.06), which was not the case for the difference between the spots treated with the homeopathic after-bite gel and the spots treated with placebo gel (P = 0.13). After pooling the data of a very similar previous pilot study and the present study (ntotal = 83), the homeopathic after-bite gel was significantly superior to no treatment (two-tailed P = 0.003) as well as to placebo gel (two-tailed P = 0.03). Comparing itching after the three treatments, no significant differences could be demonstrated. The extent of itching was positively correlated with the area of the erythema (r = 0.63). Treatment of mosquito bites with the homeopathic after-bite gel will reduce the erythema compared to no treatment. Comparison with the placebo gel suggests it is the plant extracts which are the active components of this gel.
PMID: 8751030, UI: 96287405
Lancet 1994 Dec 10;344(8937):1601-1606
We tested, under independent conditions, the reproducibility of evidence from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. The test model was again homoeopathic immunotherapy. 28 patients with allergic asthma, most of them sensitive to house-dust mite, were randomly allocated to receive either oral homoeopathic immunotherapy to their principal allergen or identical placebo. The test treatments were given as a complement to their unaltered conventional care. A daily visual analogue scale of overall symptom intensity was the outcome measure. A difference in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (p = 0.003). There were similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests. A meta-analysis of all three trials strengthened the evidence that homoeopathy does more than placebo (p = 0.0004). Is the reproducibility of evidence in favour of homoeopathy proof of its activity or proof of the clinical trial's capacity to produce false-positive results?
PMID: 7983994, UI: 95075184
Pediatrics 1994 May;93(5):719-725
OBJECTIVE. Acute diarrhea is the leading cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide. Oral rehydration treatment can prevent death from dehydration, but does not reduce the duration of individual episodes. Homeopathic treatment for acute diarrhea is used in many parts of the world. This study was performed to determine whether homeopathy is useful in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea. METHODOLOGY. A randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic medicine with placebo in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea was conducted in Leon, Nicaragua, in July 1991. Eighty-one children aged 6 months to 5 years of age were included in the study. An individualized homeopathic medicine was prescribed for each child and daily follow-up was performed for 5 days. Standard treatment with oral rehydration treatment was also given. RESULTS. The treatment group had a statistically significant (P < .05) decrease in duration of diarrhea, defined as the number of days until there were less than three unformed stools daily for 2 consecutive days. There was also a significant difference (P < .05) in the number of stools per day between the two groups after 72 hours of treatment. CONCLUSIONS. The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in the treatment group suggests that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea. Further study of this treatment deserves consideration.
PMID: 8165068, UI: 94218172
J Psychosom Res 1993 Dec;37(8):851-860
A basic tenet of homoeopathy is that remedies which do not contain active molecules can have effects on the healthy human organism, by virtue of the specific preparation process of stepwise dilution and succussion, called potentization. The claim that a so called high 'potency' of a homoepathic remedy, Belladonna C30, could produce effects different from placebo, was investigated in a pilot study. In a double-blind crossover trial, 4 weeks of Belladonna C30 were compared to 4 weeks of placebo in 47 healthy volunteers. Data were collected daily. The number and types of changes were recorded into a predefined category system. Single-case evaluation showed differences between the two experimental phases for 21 subjects. Group evaluation showed no clearcut differences. The claim that homoeopathic potencies can produce symptoms other than placebo in healthy subjects should be put to further scrutiny.
PMID: 8301625, UI: 94133200
Scand J Rheumatol 1991;20(3):204-208
Forty-four patients with active Rheumatoid Arthritis were entered into a 6-month double-blind trial comparing homeopathy and placebo. The treatments were generally equally effective in most assessments. Statistically significant improvements were produced, however, in 3 of 5 and 2 of 5 results respectively assessed in homeopathic and placebo treated groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups. Adverse effects were scarcely and comparably reported in both groups and did not require a change in therapy.
PMID: 2068543, UI: 91297443
Arzneimittelforschung 1989 May;39(5):620-625
[Article in German]
In a controlled randomized double-blind trial carried out by 47 physicians in private practice with totally 152 patients with sinusitis the therapeutic success of the following homeopathic drug preparations was investigated: Group A: combination of luffa operculata D4, kalium bicromicum D4 and cinnabaris D3. Group B: combination of kalium bicromicum D4 and cinnabaris D3. Group C: luffa operculata D4. Group D: placebo. Criteria for the therapeutic result were headache, blocked nasal breathing, trigeminal tenderness, reddening and swelling of nasal mucosa and postnasal secretion. There was no remarkable difference in the therapeutic success among the investigated homeopathic drug combinations nor between the active drugs and placebo. Averaged over all four groups 81% of the patients with acute sinusitis and 67% of the patients with chronic sinusitis recovered. In the literature comparable therapeutic results are reported for antibiotic therapy, decongestant nose drops and for the drainage of nasal cavities.
PMID: 2667526, UI: 89334976
Arzneimittelforschung 1988 Apr;38(4):578-582
A clinical test was carried out on 170 West German army soldiers suffering from common cold. The test was conducted on a monocentric, randomized, non-sequential, and inter-individual basis; the research workers were kept blind on the identity of the medication. The purpose of testing was to compare the effectiveness of a combination homeopathic preparation (Gripp-Heel) with that of acetylsalicylic acid. On the 4th and 10th treatment days, no significant difference was determined with respect to changes in clinical findings, subjectively assessed complaints, or length of time the patients were unable to work. Thus the two preparations possess comparative effectiveness in the treatment of the common cold.
PMID: 3041973, UI: 88293588
Lancet 1988 Mar 5;1(8584):528-529
PMID: 2893935, UI: 88142269
Fortschr Med 1988 Feb 20;106(5):96-100
PMID: 3283007, UI: 88196986
Clin Ter 1987 Sep 30;122(6):429-436
[Article in Italian]
PMID: 2972455, UI: 89029590
AMB Rev Assoc Med Bras 1987 May;33(5-6):83-88
[Article in Portugese]
PMID: 3329355, UI: 88204301
Lancet 1986 Oct 18;2(8512):881-886
The hypothesis that homoeopathic potencies are placebos was tested in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The study model chosen compared the effects of a homoeopathic preparation of mixed grass pollens with placebo in 144 patients with active hayfever. The homoeopathically treated patients showed a significant reduction in patient and doctor assessed symptom scores. The significance of this response was increased when results were corrected for pollen count and the response was associated with a halving of the need for antihistamines. An initial aggravation of symptoms was noted more often in patients receiving the potency and was followed by an improvement in that group. No evidence emerged to support the idea that placebo action fully explains the clinical responses to homoeopathic drugs.
PMID: 2876326, UI: 87013672
Arzneimittelforschung 1986 Sep;36(9):1421-1425
Four homeopathic drug preparations with extract dilutions between D1 and D30 (expression for the homeopathic grade of potencies) and some additives (minerals and animal toxins) were investigated, using two in vitro and one in vivo phagocytosis models. All preparations enhanced significantly the activity of phagocytosis in all used systems. In controlled prospective single-blind studies with the preparations C and D performed on 12 and 14 verum and 13 male placebo volunteers respectively with i.v. injections within a 5-day treatment the phagocytosis indices were measured during 11 days using the microscopic smear method. In both investigations the maximum of phagocytosis activity was reached between the 4th and 5th day of injection. After the 4th or 5th (next to the last or last) injection, a rapid decrease of activity occurred which reached normal values on the 11th day. Other laboratory parameters investigated were not influenced.
PMID: 3539129, UI: 87075923
Arzneimittelforschung 1985;35(11):1745-1747
The preparation of homeopathic drugs is based on potentiation. In this potentiation the primary substance is specially mixed with a carrier (typically 90% ethanol) in the ratio 1:10. Usually this potentiation is done repeatedly and the final drug is labeled, e.g., "D6" which means a 6 times decimal potentiation. In a controlled randomized strictly double-blind trial with 164 patients the effectiveness of homeopathically prepared Galphimia D6, a conventional Galphimia dilution 10(-6) and a placebo was investigated for the therapy of pollinosis. The average duration of treatment was about 5 weeks. Although no statistical significance was achieved, it is remarkable that there was a clear trend for the superiority of Galphimia D6 while the Galphimia dilution 10(-6) was about equally effective compared with placebo. The study itself demonstrates that it is possible to do strictly controlled trials for homeopathic drugs and with medical practitioners.
PMID: 3911965, UI: 86130836
Lancet 1983 Jan 15;1(8316):97-98
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to compare the homoeopathic remedy Rhus tox. 6X with fenoprofen in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee, fenoprofen was shown to have beneficial analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects which differed significantly from those of placebo. The effects of Rhus tox. 6X and placebo did not differ significantly. Patient preference was for fenoprofen. Side-effects were not severe but were seen more frequently with fenoprofen. Similar results were seen in all patients regardless of whether they had been referred to and assessed by a homoeopathic physician or a rheumatologist.
PMID: 6129459, UI: 83087546
Wien Klin Wochenschr 1982 Dec 24;94(24):665-670
In a randomized double-blind cross-over study the effects of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy were compared with those of homeopathic treatment in 10 patients with essential hypertension. The conclusions are: 1. The blood pressure lowering effect under pharmacotherapy is clearly superior to that under homeotherapy, where it was negligible and statistically not significant. 2. As far as improvement of subjective complaints of the patients is concerned there was no superiority of pharmacotherapy over homeopathic treatment. 3. The cross-over design appears less suitable than, perhaps, a design with parallel treatment groups because of the long duration of such a study and the observed carry-over effect.
PMID: 6763404, UI: 83199403
Arzneimittelforschung 1981;31(4):732-736
53 outpatients suffering from common cold (flu) were randomly assigned to either a therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or the homeopathic drug Eupatorium perfoliatum D2 in a controlled clinical trial. The efficacy of the drugs was assessed on day 1, 4 and 10 of the infection by symptom check lists and physical examinations. Neither subjective complaints nor body temperature or laboratory findings showed any significant differences between groups which was taken as evidence that both drugs were equally effective.
PMID: 7195723, UI: 81232390
Br J Clin Pharmacol 1980 May;9(5):453-459
Twenty-three patients with rheumatoid arthritis on orthodox first-line anti-inflammatory treatment plus homeopathy were compared wtih a similar group of twenty-three patients on orthodox first-line treatment plus an inert preparation. There was a significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness and grip strength in those patients receiving homoeopathic remedies whereas there was no significant change in the patients who received placebo. Two physicians were involved in prescribing for the patients and there were no significant differences in the results which they obtained. No side effects were observed with the homoeopathic remedies.
PMID: 6994789, UI: 80242431
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 1990;38(2):139-147
The present review covers forty published randomized trials in which the results of a homoeopathic treatment were compared to those of a standard treatment, a placebo, or no treatment at all. These trials were identified after an extensive search through the literature. They cover a wide range of pathologies. Most were double-blind and used subjective and/or multiple endpoints. The median number of patients per group was 28. The analysis only included all the randomized patients in one third of the trials. In our opinion, the results do not provide acceptable evidence that homoeopathic treatments are effective.
PMID: 2197682, UI: 90326889
BMJ 1991 Feb 9;302(6772):316-323
OBJECTIVE--To establish whether there is evidence of the efficacy of homoeopathy from controlled trials in humans. DESIGN--Criteria based meta-analysis. Assessment of the methodological quality of 107 controlled trials in 96 published reports found after an extensive search. Trials were scored using a list of predefined criteria of good methodology, and the outcome of the trials was interpreted in relation to their quality. SETTING--Controlled trials published world wide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Results of the trials with the best methodological quality. Trials of classical homoeopathy and several modern varieties were considered separately. RESULTS--In 14 trials some form of classical homoeopathy was tested and in 58 trials the same single homoeopathic treatment was given to patients with comparable conventional diagnosis. Combinations of several homoeopathic treatments were tested in 26 trials; isopathy was tested in nine trials. Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy. CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.
Published erratum appears in BMJ 1991 Apr 6;302(6780):818
PMID: 1825800, UI: 91159730
Cephalalgia 1997 Aug;17(5):600-604
[Medline record in process]
Homoeopathic remedies for migraine are widely available over the counter, statutorily offered by the national health service in the UK, and apparently popular with patients. Do they work? Sixty-three outpatients with migraine with or without aura by IHS criteria entered a 4-month randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind parallel-groups trial of individualized homoeopathic prophylaxis, the first month being baseline with all patients on placebo. Three patients (4.8%) dropped out, leaving 30 in each treatment group. There were chance differences in attack frequency and severity between the groups at baseline (attacks were more frequent but less severe in the placebo group). Both groups improved on therapy, but neither to a great extent on the primary outcome measure of attack frequency (verum: -19%; placebo: -16%). Reduction was mostly in mild attacks on placebo, more in moderate and severe attacks on homoeopathy. Few adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic treatment. The course of change differed between groups, and suggested that improvement reversed in the last month of treatment on placebo. On this evidence we cannot recommend homoeopathy for migraine prophylaxis, but cannot conclude that it is without effect.
PMID: 9251877, UI: 97395777
Padiatr Padol 1992;27(6):A95-A100
A growing number of physicians in everyday practice use homoeopathy not as an alternative but rather as a supplementation to conventional medicine. A whole number of trials concerning both basic and clinical research have given evidence of the efficacy of homoeopathy and of the way it works. Nevertheless, in order to draw definite conclusions, the methodological quality of the trials will have to be improved. The evidence accumulated so far justifies the planning of further studies in collaboration between homoeopathic practitioners and clinicians. In order to achieve relevant results further studies have to be designed according to the principles of homoeopathy, especially the individual prescription of remedies.
PMID: 1484708, UI: 93133623