Efficacy of Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in the Treatment of Sciatica Pain: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Objectives: Sciatica is a debilitating condition that causes pain in its distribution or in the lumbosacral nerve root that is connected to it. Although there are claims that homeopathy can reduce sciatica pain, systematic scientific proof is currently lacking. The objective of the trial was to determine whether individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) were as effective as identical-looking placebos in treating sciatica pain. Design: This is a double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: The study was conducted at Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Howrah, West Bengal, India. Subjects: Sixty participants with sciatica pain were included in this study. Interventions: Verum (n = 30; IHMs plus concomitant care) versus control (n = 30; placebos plus concomitant care). Outcome measures: Primary-Sciatica Bothersome Index (SBI) and Sciatica Frequency Index (SFI) scores and secondary-Roland Morris Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMPDQ), Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire (OLBPQ) scores: all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Results: Intention-to-treat sample (n = 60) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated measure analysis of variance, primarily accounting for between groups and time interactions, and additionally, by unpaired t tests comparing the estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at p < 0.025 and <0.05 two tailed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Group differences could not achieve significance in SBI (p = 0.044), SFI (p = 0.080), and RMPDQ scores (p = 0.134), but were significant for SF-MPQ (p = 0.007) and OLBPQ (p = 0.036). Gnaphalium polycephalum (n = 6; 10%) was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm, serious adverse events, or intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. Conclusions: The primary outcome failed to demonstrate evidently that homeopathy was effective beyond placebo, and the trial remained inconclusive. Independent replications are warranted to confirm the findings. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2020/10/028617.

Efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines in irritable bowel syndrome: A double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Gastrointestinal ailments are some of the common conditions treated in homeopathy; yet only a few trials have explored the effects of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy of IHMs in treatment of IBS. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient departments of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, India. PATIENTS: Sixty patients suffering from IBS; randomized to receive either IHMs (n = 30) or identical-looking placebo (n = 30). INTERVENTIONS: IHMs or placebo in the mutual context of concomitant care in terms of dietary advice, yoga, meditation and exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - IBS quality of life (IBS-QOL) questionnaire; secondary -IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) and EQ-5D-5L scores; all measured at baseline and every month, up to 3 months. RESULTS: Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated on intention-to-treat (ITT) sample. Groups were comparable at baseline. Recruitment, retention and attrition rates were 64.5%, 91.7% and 8.3% respectively. Group differences in IBS-QOL total scores, IBS-SSS, EQ-5D-5L scores favored IHMs against placebo overall and at all the time points (all P < 0.001). Pulsatilla nigricans (n = 4, 6.7%) and Thuja occidentalis (n = 4, 6.7%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. Barring some minor events unrelated to interventions, no harms or serious adverse events were recorded in either of the groups. Thus, IHMs acted significantly better than placebos in the treatment of IBS. Independent replications are warranted. [Trial registration: CTRI/2019/10/021632].

Efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines in primary dysmenorrhea: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Homeopathic treatment is claimed to be beneficial for primary dysmenorrhoea (PD); still, systematic research evidences remain compromised. This study was undertaken to examine the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IH) against placebo in the treatment of PD. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the gynecology outpatient department of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal, India. Patients were randomized to receive either IH (n=64) or identical-looking placebo (n=64). Primary and secondary outcome measures were 0-10 numeric rating scales (NRS) measuring intensity of pain of dysmenorrhea and verbal multidimensional scoring system (VMSS) respectively; all measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated on intention-to-treat (ITT) sample. RESULTS: Groups were comparable at baseline (all p>0.05). Attrition rate was 10.9% (IH: 7, placebo: 7). Differences between groups in both pain NRS and VMSS favoured IH over placebo at all time points (all p<0.001, unpaired t-tests and two-ways repeated measures analysis of variance) with medium to large effect sizes. Natrum muriaticum and Pulsatilla nigricans (n=20 each; 15.6%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, serious adverse events and intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Homeopathic medicines acted significantly better than placebo in the treatment of PD. Independent replication is warranted. Trial registration: CTRI/2018/10/016013.

Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in Stage I Essential Hypertension: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Trial.

Objective: The present study assessed the feasibility of a definitive placebo-controlled trial for evaluating individualized homeopathy (IH) in stage I hypertension (HTN). Design: Double-blind, randomized (IH: 34, placebo: 34), placebo-controlled, parallel arms, pilot trial. Settings/Location: National Institute of Homoeopathy, India. Subjects: Patients suffering from stage I HTN. Interventions: IH and identical-looking placebo. Outcome measures: Feasibility issues, blood pressure (BP) and Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile-2 (MYMOP-2) were assessed for 6 months. Results: The recruitment and retention rates were 44.4% and 85.3%, respectively. Group differences were seemingly higher in the IH group than in the placebo group. Conclusions: Despite challenges in recruitment, an adequately powered efficacy trial appears feasible in the future.

Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common disorder, with up to an estimated 134 million Indian sufferers, and having significant impact on quality of life (QOL) and health costs. Despite the evidence favoring homeopathy in CRS being inadequate, it is highly popular. This trial attempts to study the efficacy of individualized homeopathy (IH) medicines in comparison with placebo in patients with CRS. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled, preliminary trial (n = 62) was conducted at the National Institute of Homoeopathy, West Bengal, India. Primary outcome measure was the sino-nasal outcome test-20 (SNOT-20) questionnaire; secondary outcomes were the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale scores, and five numeric rating scales (0-10) assessing intensity of sneezing, rhinorrhea, post-nasal drip, facial pain/pressure, and disturbance in sense of smell, all measured at baseline and after the 2nd and 4th months of intervention. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample. RESULTS: Groups were comparable at baseline. Attrition rate was 6.5% (IH: 1, Placebo: 3). Although improvements in both primary and secondary outcome measures were higher in the IH group than placebo, with small to medium effect sizes, the group differences were statistically non-significant (all p > 0.05, unpaired t-tests). Calcarea carbonica, Lycopodium clavatum, Sulphur, Natrum muriaticum and Pulsatilla nigricans were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harmful or unintended effects, homeopathic aggravations or any serious adverse events were reported from either group. CONCLUSION: There was a small but non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy, which ultimately renders the trial as inconclusive. Rigorous trials and independent replications are recommended to arrive at a confirmatory conclusion. [Trial registration: CTRI/2018/03/012557; UTN: U1111-1210-7201].

Efficacy of individualized homeopathic treatment of insomnia: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia is the most common sleep-related complaint associated with impaired day-time functioning, reduced quality of life, increased morbidity and substantial societal cost. We evaluated whether individualized homeopathy (IH) could produce significant effect beyond placebo in treatment of insomnia. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two parallel arms trial, 60 patients were randomized to receive either IH/verum or control/placebo (1:1). Patient-administered sleep diary (6 items; 1: latency to fall asleep, 2: minutes awake in middle of night, 3: minutes awake too early, 4: hours spent in bed, 5: total sleep time in hours, and 6: sleep efficiency) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) were taken as the primary and secondary outcomes respectively, measured at baseline, and after 3 months. RESULTS: Five patients dropped out (verum: 2, control: 3). Intention to treat sample (n = 60) was analyzed. Trial arms were comparable at baseline. In the verum group, except sleep diary item 3 (P = 0.371), rest of the outcomes improved significantly (all P < 0.01). In the control group, there were significant improvements in diary item 6 and ISI score (P < 0.01) and just significant improvement in item 5 (P = 0.018). Group differences were significant for items 4, 5 and 6 (P < 0.01) and just significant (P = 0.014) for ISI score with moderate to large effect sizes; but non-significant (P > 0.01) for rest of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: IH seemed to produce significantly better effect than placebo. Rigorous trials and independent replications are warranted.