Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Feasibility Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed at examining the feasibility issues of comparing individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) with identical-looking placebos for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Forty eligible patients participated in this double-blind, randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled feasibility trial in the outpatient clinics of a homeopathic hospital in West Bengal, India. Either IHMs or identical-looking placebos were administered, along with mutually agreed-upon concomitant care guidelines. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was the primary outcome measure, and derived Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores from KOOS, EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were the secondary outcomes; all measured at baseline and after 2 months. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were estimated using an intention-to-treat approach. p-Values less than 0.05 (two-tailed) were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Enrolment/screening and trial retention rates were 43% and 85% respectively. Recruitment was difficult owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown. Group differences were statistically significant, favoring IHMs against placebos in all the KOOS sub-scales: symptoms (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.002), activities of daily living (p < 0.001), sports or recreation (p = 0.016), and quality of life (p = 0.002). Derived WOMAC scores from KOOS favored IHMs against placebos: stiffness (p < 0.001) and pain (p < 0.001). The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire score (p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores (p < 0.001) also yielded significant results, favoring IHMs over placebos. All the effect sizes ranged from moderate to large. Sulphur was the most frequently prescribed homeopathic medication. Neither group reported any harm or serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although recruitment was sub-optimal due to prevailing COVID-19 conditions during the trial, the action of IHMs was found to be superior to that of placebos in the treatment of knee OA. Larger and more definitive studies, with independent replications, are required to substantiate the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2021/02/031453.

Homeopathic Medicines Used as Prophylaxis in Kolkata during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Community-Based, Cluster-Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatment has been used successfully in previous epidemics, and currently some countries are testing homeoprophylaxis for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is a strong tradition of homeopathic treatment in India: therefore, we decided to compare three different homeopathic medicines against placebo in prevention of COVID-19 infections. METHODS: In this double-blind, cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled, four parallel arms, community-based, clinical trial, a 20,000-person sample of the population residing in Ward Number 57 of the Tangra area, Kolkata, was randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio of clusters to receive one of three homeopathic medicines (Bryonia alba 30cH, Gelsemium sempervirens 30cH, Phosphorus 30cH) or identical-looking placebo, for 3 (children) or 6 (adults) days. All the participants, who were aged 5 to 75 years, received ascorbic acid (vitamin C) tablets of 500 mg, once per day for 6 days. In addition, instructions on healthy diet and general hygienic measures, including hand washing, social distancing and proper use of mask and gloves, were given to all the participants. RESULTS: No new confirmed COVID-19 cases were diagnosed in the target population during the follow-up timeframe of 1 month-December 20, 2020 to January 19, 2021-thus making the trial inconclusive. The Phosphorus group had the least exposure to COVID-19 compared with the other groups. In comparison with placebo, the occurrence of unconfirmed COVID-19 cases was significantly less in the Phosphorus group (week 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.16; week 2: OR, 0.004; 95% CI, 0.0002 to 0.06; week 3: OR, 0.007; 95% CI, 0.0004 to 0.11; week 4: OR, 0.009; 95% CI, 0.0006 to 0.14), but not in the Bryonia or Gelsemium groups. CONCLUSION: Overall, the trial was inconclusive. The possible effect exerted by Phosphorus necessitates further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2020/11/029265.

Treatment of Menstrual Irregularities with Individualized Homeopathic Medicinal Products in Early Reproductive Females: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Objectives: Prevalence of irregular menstrual cycle ranges from 81.7% to 96.3%. Recent research suggested that homeopathy is one of the most popular choices for women with various gynecological disorders. This trial was aimed at differentiating individualized homeopathic medicinal products (IHMPs) from identical-looking placebos in the treatment of menstrual irregularities in early reproductive women. Design: Double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Subjects: Ninety-two females with menstrual irregularities. Interventions: Group verum (n = 46; IHMPs plus concomitant care) versus group control (n = 46; placebos plus concomitant care). Outcome Measures: Primary-The proportion of early reproductive females in whom menstrual irregularities can be corrected for consecutive three cycles; Secondary-Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) total score; all of them were measured at baseline and every month, up to 4 months. Results: Intention-to-treat sample (n = 92) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by chi-squared tests with categorical outcomes, two-way repeated measure analysis of variance accounting for the time-effect interactions, and unpaired t-tests comparing the mean estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 two-tailed. After 4 months of intervention, the group difference in the primary outcome was nonsignificant statistically-IHMPs: 22/46 v/s placebo: 24/46, chi-square (Yates corrected) = 0.043, p = 0.835. The improvement observed in the MDQ total score (F1,90 = 0.054, p = 0.816) and subscales scores were higher in the IHMPs group than in placebos, however statistically nonsignificant in most of the occasions, except for the behavioral change subscale (F1,90 = 0.029, p < 0.001). Pulsatilla nigricans was the most frequently prescribed medicine. Kent's Repertory and Zandvoort's Complete Repertory were the most frequently used repertories. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either group. Conclusions: The analysis failed to demonstrate clearly that IHMPs were effective beyond placebos in all but one of the outcomes. More appropriate outcome measures may be sought for future trials. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2022/04/041659.