Homeopathy as an Adjuvant to Standard Care in Moderate and Severe Cases of COVID-19: A Single-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether individualized homeopathic medicines have a greater adjunctive effect than adjunctive placebos in the treatment of moderate and severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The study was a randomized, single-blind, prospective, placebo-controlled clinical trial set in the clinical context of standard care. INTERVENTION: Patients of either sex, admitted in a tertiary care hospital, suffering from moderate or severe COVID-19 and above 18 years of age were included. In total, 150 patients were recruited and then randomly divided into two groups to receive either individualized homeopathic medicines or placebos, in addition to the standard treatment of COVID-19. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time taken to achieve RT-PCR-confirmed virus clearance for COVID-19. Secondary outcomes were changes in the Clinical Ordinal Outcomes Scale (COOS) of the World Health Organization, the patient-reported MYMOP2 scale, and several biochemical parameters. Parametric data were analyzed using unpaired t-test. Non-parametric data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Categorical data were analyzed using Chi-square test. RESULTS: In total, 72 participants of the add-on homeopathy (AoH) group showed conversion of RT-PCR status to negative, in an average time of 7.53 ± 4.76 days (mean ± SD), as compared with 11.65 ± 9.54 days in the add-on placebo (AoP) group (p = 0.001). The mean COOS score decreased from 4.26 ± 0.44 to 3.64 ± 1.50 and from 4.3 ± 0.46 to 4.07 ± 1.8 in the AoH and AoP groups respectively (p = 0.130). The mortality rate for the AoH group was 9.7% compared with 17.3% in the AoP group. The MYMOP2 scores between the two groups differed significantly (p = 0.001), in favor of AoH. Inter-group differences in the pre- and post- mean values of C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, total leukocyte count, platelet count and alkaline phosphatase were each found to be statistically significant (p <0.05), favoring AoH; six other biochemical parameters showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The study suggests homeopathy may be an effective adjunct to standard care for treating moderate and severe COVID-19 patients. More rigorous, including double-blinded, studies should be performed to confirm or refute these initial findings.

Individualized Homeopathic Medicines as Adjunctive Treatment of Pediatric Epilepsy: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy, one of the most common neurological diseases, contributes to 0.5% of the total disease burden. The burden is highest in sub-Saharan Africa, central Asia, central and Andean Latin America, and south-east Asia. Asian countries report an overall prevalence of 6/1,000 and that in India of 5.59/1,000. We examined whether individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) can produce a significantly different effect from placebos in treatment of pediatric epilepsy in the context of ongoing standard care (SC) using anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). METHODS: The study was a 6-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (n = 60) conducted at the pediatric outpatient department of a homeopathic hospital in West Bengal, India. Patients were randomized to receive either IHMs plus SC (n = 30) or identical-looking placebos plus SC (n = 30). The primary outcome measure was the Hague Seizure Severity Scale (HASS); secondary outcomes were the Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QOLCE-16) and the Pediatric Quality of Life inventory (PedsQL) questionnaires; all were measured at baseline and after the 3rd and 6th month of intervention. The intention-to-treat sample was analyzed to detect group differences and effect sizes. RESULTS: Recruitment and retention rates were 65.2% and 91.7% respectively. Although improvements were greater in the IHMs group than with placebos, with small to medium effect sizes, the inter-group differences were statistically non-significant - for HASS (F 1, 58 = 0.000, p = 1.000, two-way repeated measures analysis of variance), QOLCE-16 (F 1, 58 = 1.428, p = 0.237), PedsQL (2-4 years) (F 1, 8 = 0.685, p = 0.432) and PedsQL (5-18 years) (F 1, 47 = 0.000, p = 0.995). Calcarea carbonica, Ignatia amara, Natrum muriaticum and Phosphorus were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No serious adverse events were reported from either of the two groups. CONCLUSION: Improvements in the outcome measures were statistically non-significantly greater in the IHMs group than in the placebos group, with small effect sizes. A different trial design and prescribing approach might work better in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2018/10/016027.

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 Medicines in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylosis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical spondylosis (CS) is a degenerative condition of the cervical spine, with approximately 80-90% of people suffering from disc degeneration by the age of 50 years. This trial attempts at evaluating the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) against placebos in the treatment of CS. METHODS: A 3-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the Organon of Medicine outpatient department of the National Institute of Homoeopathy, India. Patients were randomized to receive either IHMs (n = 70) or identical-looking placebos (n = 70) in the mutual context of concomitant conservative and standard physiotherapeutic care. Primary outcome measures were 0-10 Numeric Rating Scales (NRSs) for pain, stiffness, numbness, tingling, weakness, and vertigo, and the secondary outcome was the Neck Disability Index (NDI), measured at baseline and every month until 3 months. The intention-to-treat sample was analyzed to detect group differences and effect sizes. RESULTS: Overall, improvements were clinically significant and higher in the IHM group than the placebo group, but group differences were statistically nonsignificant with small effect sizes (all p > 0.05, two-way repeated measure analysis of variance). After 2 months of time points, improvements observed in the IHM group were significantly higher than placebo on a few occasions (e.g., pain NRS: p < 0.001; stiffness NRS: p = 0.024; weakness NRS: p = 0.003). Sulfur (n = 21; 15%) was the most frequently prescribed medication. No harm, unintended effects, or any serious adverse events were reported from either group. CONCLUSIONS: An encouraging but nonsignificant direction of effect was elicited favoring IHMs against placebos in the treatment of CS.

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 the Treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Pilot Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence favoring homeopathy in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) remains scarce. The objective of this pilot trial was to test feasibility of a definitive trial in future. We also experimented whether individualized homeopathic medicines (IH) plus psychological counseling (PC) can produce significantly different effects beyond placebo plus PC in the treatment of GAD. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel arm, pilot trial was conducted on 62 GAD patients at the National Institute of Homoeopathy, India. GAD-7 questionnaire and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) were used as the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively, measured at baseline and 3 months. Patients received either IH plus PC (n = 31) or identical-looking placebo plus PC (n = 31). Intention-to-treat sample was analyzed to detect group differences using unpaired t tests. RESULTS: Recruitment and retention rates were 56 and 90%, respectively. Mean age was 31.5 years; 56.5% were male. GAD-7 reductions were non-significantly higher in IH than placebo (p = 0.122). Group differences on HAM-A favored IH significantly (p = 0.018). Effect sizes were small to medium. Calcarea carbonica was the most frequently indicated medicine. No serious adverse events happened. CONCLUSIONS: A small but positive direction of anxiolytic effect was observed favoring homeopathy over placebo. A definitive trial appeared feasible in future.

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.