Strange, Rare and Peculiar Symptoms of COVID-19 Cases Managed by Practitioners of the Homeopathy Help Network.

BACKGROUND: More than 670 million people have been infected by COVID-19. This case series reports 8 of 55 cases in a broader study of COVID-positive clients who sought homeopathic care for symptoms. Existing studies of homeopathy and COVID-19 have sometimes failed to employ the underpinning theoretical framework of homeopathy-the genus epidemicus. Special focus has been placed on standout symptoms not often reported in conventional medical outlets, known among homeopaths as "strange, rare and peculiar" (SRP) symptoms. The Homeopathy Help Network (HHN) team of practitioners noted SRP symptoms across dozens of cases and studied how they shifted collectively as different variants of the virus emerged. METHODS: COVID-positive individuals self-selected for individualized care for their symptoms using homeopathy. They received tele-health consultations and individualized homeopathy interventions in an out-patient homeopathy clinical setting. Clients were seen by individual professional homeopathy practitioners and students under supervision working at the HHN in the United States. Cases for the series were hand-picked with the aim of being an average representation of the more than 4,000 COVID-positive cases seen by members of the HHN. Cases in the full compendium are grouped according to a predominant case feature: Multiple remedies, Posology, Time ill, Single remedy resolution, Hospitalization and, in this case series, SRP symptoms. RESULTS: SRP symptoms included: continually on the verge of unconsciousness; dark green stools; very low pulse alternating with tachycardia; sensation of strong or burning chemical smells; sensation of inhaling water through the nose; recurring electric shock sensations in head or extremities; yellow-green stools. CONCLUSION: Collective SRP symptoms from the pandemic provided the opportunity to study the hallmark features of COVID-19 in depth. The importance of these symptoms highlights the applicability of Hahnemannian principles and good case-taking practices.

Antiviral Activity of Cinchona officinalis, a Homeopathic Medicine, against COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a potentially fatal disease caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) significantly inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infections in vitro. OBJECTIVE: Since the phytoconstituents of Cinchona officinalis (CO) are similar to those of HCQ, the objective of this study was to test the antiviral potential of different homeopathic formulations of CO. METHODS: An analysis of the molecular composition of CO was carried out using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry, followed by a detailed docking study. The constituents of CO were docked against various targets of SARS-CoV-2, and the binding potential of the phytoconstituents was compared and quantified. The ligand with the lowest Glide docking score is considered to have the best binding affinity. The cytotoxicity of several homeopathic formulations, including CO mother tincture (CO-MT), was also checked on VeroE6 cells. A known antiviral, remdesivir, was used as a positive control for the in vitro assays to evaluate the effects of CO-MT against SARS-CoV-2-infected VeroE6 cells. RESULTS: Molecular docking studies showed that constituents of CO exhibited binding potential to various targets of SARS-CoV-2, including Mpro, PLpro, RdRp, nucleocapsid protein, ACE2 (in host) and spike protein. Quinoline, one of the constituents of CO, can potentially bind the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Quinic acid showed better binding capabilities with Mpro, PLpro RdRp, nucleocapsid protein and ACE2 (allosteric site) than other constituents. Quinidine exhibited better binding to ACE2. Compared to HCQ, other phytoconstituents of CO had the equivalent potential to bind the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, nucleocapsid protein, Mpro, PLpro and spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. In vitro assays showed that homeopathic CO-MT was not cytotoxic and that CO-MT and remdesivir respectively caused 89% and 99% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 infection in VeroE6 cells. CONCLUSION: Based on this in silico and in vitro evidence, we propose CO-MT as a promising antiviral medicine candidate for treating COVID-19. In vivo investigation is required to clarify the therapeutic potential of CO-MT in COVID-19.

The BISTIM study: a randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders? SUMMARY ANSWER: Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [-1.1; 1.9], P = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 September 2018.

Papaverine: A Miraculous Alkaloid from Opium and Its Multimedicinal Application.

The pharmacological actions of benzylisoquinoline alkaloids are quite substantial, and have recently attracted much attention. One of the principle benzylisoquinoline alkaloids has been found in the unripe seed capsules of Papaver somniferum L. Although it lacks analgesic effects and is unrelated to the compounds in the morphine class, it is a peripheral vasodilator and has a direct effect on vessels. It is reported to inhibit the cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) phosphodiesterase in smooth muscles, and it has been observed to increase intracellular levels of cAMP and cGMP. It induces coronary, cerebral, and pulmonary artery dilatation and helps to lower cerebral vascular resistance and enhance cerebral blood flow. Current pharmacological research has revealed that papaverine demonstrates a variety of biological activities, including activity against erectile dysfunction, postoperative vasospasms, and pulmonary vasoconstriction, as well as antiviral, cardioprotective, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, neuroprotective, and gestational actions. It was recently demonstrated that papaverine has the potential to control SARS-CoV-2 by preventing its cytopathic effect. These experiments were carried out both in vitro and in vivo and require an extensive understanding of the mechanisms of action. With its multiple mechanisms, papaverine can be considered as a natural compound that is used to develop therapeutic drugs. To validate its applications, additional research is required into its precise therapeutic mechanisms as well as its acute and chronic toxicities. Therefore, the goal of this review is to discuss the major studies and reported clinical studies looking into the pharmacological effects of papaverine and the mechanisms of action underneath these effects. Additionally, it is recommended to conduct further research via significant pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies.

Homeopathic Medicines in Second Wave of COVID-19: Prognostic Factor Research.

BACKGROUND: The clinical profile and course of COVID-19 evolved perilously in a second wave, leading to the use of various treatment modalities that included homeopathy. This prognostic factor research (PFR) study aimed to identify clinically useful homeopathic medicines in this second wave. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multi-centred observational study performed from March 2021 to May 2021 on confirmed COVID-19 cases who were either in home isolation or at COVID Care Centres in Delhi, India. The data were collected from integrated COVID Care Centres where homeopathic medicines were prescribed along with conventional treatment. Only those cases that met a set of selection criteria were considered for analysis. The likelihood ratio (LR) was calculated for the frequently occurring symptoms of the prescribed medicines. An LR of 1.3 or greater was considered meaningful. RESULTS: Out of 769 confirmed COVID-19 cases reported, 514 cases were selected for analysis, including 467 in home isolation. The most common complaints were cough, fever, myalgia, sore throat, loss of taste and/or smell, and anxiety. Most cases improved and there was no adverse reaction. Certain new symptoms, e.g., headache, dryness of mouth and conjunctivitis, were also seen. Thirty-nine medicines were prescribed, the most frequent being Bryonia alba followed by Arsenicum album, Pulsatilla nigricans, Belladonna, Gelsemium sempervirens, Hepar sulphuris, Phosphorus, Rhus toxicodendron and Mercurius solubilis. By calculating LR, the prescribing indications of these nine medicines were ascertained. CONCLUSION: Add-on use of homeopathic medicines has shown encouraging results in the second wave of COVID-19 in integrated care facilities. Further COVID-related research is required to be undertaken on the most commonly prescribed medicines.

Test of a Homeopathic Algorithm for COVID-19: the Importance of a Broad Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Most of the symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are covered by large repertory rubrics and hence many remedies have been proposed as "genus epidemicus". The aim of this study was to combine the information from various data collections to prepare a COVID-19 Bayesian mini-repertory/an algorithm-based application (app) and test it. METHODS: In July 2021, 1,161 COVID-19 cases from 100 practitioners globally were combined. These data were used to calculate "condition-confined" likelihood ratios (LRs) for 59 symptoms of COVID-19. Out of these, 35 symptoms of the 11 medicines that had at least 20 cases each were considered. The information was entered in a spreadsheet (algorithm) to calculate combined LRs of specific combinations of symptoms. The algorithm contained the medicines Arsenicum album, Belladonna, Bryonia alba, Camphora, Gelsemium sempervirens, Hepar sulphuris, Mercurius solubilis, Nux vomica, Phosphorus, Pulsatilla and Rhus toxicodendron. To test concordance, the doctors were then invited to re-enter the symptoms of their cases into this algorithm. RESULTS: The algorithm was re-tested on 358 cases, and concordance was seen in 288 cases. On analysis of the data, bias was noticed in the Merc group, which was therefore excluded from the algorithm. The remaining 10 medicines, representing 81.8% of all cases, were included in the preparation of the next version of the homeopathic mini-repertory and app. CONCLUSION: The Bayesian mini-repertory and app is based on qualitative clinical experiences of various doctors in COVID-19 and gives indications for specific medicines for common COVID-19 symptoms. It is freely available [English: https://hpra.co.uk/; Spanish: https://hpra.co.uk/es ] for further testing and utilization by the profession.

Homeopathic Treatment in Patients with COVID-19: Analysis of Clinical Evolution and Comparison between Cases in 2020 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: The manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can result in several prognoses and lead patients to look for appropriate complementary or alternative treatment options according to their personal situation and available health care. Patients with mild symptoms or those who have not yet reached the maximum severity of their condition are those who seek outpatient care, where homeopathic treatment might be considered, given the well documented history of this medical system in several epidemics in the past. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the homeopathic treatment used for symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in March and April 2020 with cases treated in March and April 2021. METHOD: This is a retrospective observational study based on the analysis of the medical records of symptomatic COVID-19 patients treated on an outpatient basis with homeopathy at the Hahnemanniano George Galvão Institute in São Paulo, Brazil. We analyzed 54 cases, divided into two samples (27 cases in each year), similar in relation to age, gender and origin of the patients. RESULTS: The development was distinct in the 2 years, with improvement of symptoms after 3 days of the first homeopathic prescription in 2020 whilst in 2021 the improvement occurred from the sixth day onward. The most frequently prescribed homeopathic medicine also differed in the two samples (Antimonium tartaricum in 2020; Arsenicum album in 2021), which indicates the different disease characteristics at these two moments of the epidemic. CONCLUSION: In 2020, the symptomatology of the cases was mainly acute and the main medicine was Antimonium tartaricum. By comparison, in 2021 a greater interference from individuals' previous chronic miasmatic disease may explain the change in the main medicines used that year, with Arsenicum album being the most prescribed in the cases studied.

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.

Searching for the Genus Epidemicus in Chinese Patients: Findings from the Clificol COVID-19 Clinical Case Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Clificol COVID-19 Support Project is an innovative international data collection project aimed at tackling some of the core questions in homeopathy. This paper reports on the further investigation of the genus epidemicus concept during the first wave of the pandemic in the Chinese population. METHODS: The design is an observational clinical case registry study of Chinese patients with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The symptoms were prospectively collected via a 150-item questionnaire. The concept of genus epidemicus, including the role of treatment individualization, was investigated by analyzing whether presenting symptoms clustered into distinct groups. Two standard statistical analysis techniques were utilized: principal component analysis for extracting the most meaningful symptoms of the dataset; the k-means clustering algorithm for automatically assigning groups based on similarity between presenting symptoms. RESULTS: 20 Chinese practitioners collected 359 cases in the first half of 2020 (766 consultations, 363 prescriptions). The cluster analysis found two to be the optimum number of clusters. These two symptomatic clusters had a high overlap with the two most commonly prescribed remedies in these sub-populations: in cluster 1 there were 297 prescriptions, 95.6% of which were Gelsemium sempervirens; in cluster 2 there were 61 prescriptions, 95.1% of which were Bryonia alba. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the notion of genus epidemicus by using modern statistical techniques. These analyses identified at least two distinct symptom pictures. The notion of a single COVID-19 genus epidemicus did not apply in the studied population.

Homoeopathic Medicine Arsenicum album 30 C for Covid-19 in 2020: A Retrospective Analysis from Mass-level Data.

Background and Objective: Homoeopathy has played a notable role in managing epidemics in the past. The Ministry of Ayush, Government of India, declared Arsenicum album 30 C as a prophylactic for Covid-19, which was followed by the distribution of the medicine across India. The Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) collected post-prophylactic consumption data of individuals from various colleges over months, which created a data pool. Considering the importance of these mass-level data and their possible impact on public healthcare decisions, the information gathered from this heterogeneous population cohort was subjected to a retrospective data analysis to observe the incidence of Covid-19 in the community. Methods: Data from 50 colleges from February-August 2020 showed that 10.6 million people in 13 states of India received prophylactic medicine during the study period. The data was collected from individuals three weeks following prophylactic consumption for a retrospective analysis. The incidence of Covid-19 was assessed. Results: The data of 584 980 individuals who met the study criteria were included in the analysis. The incidence of Covid-19 in the population cohort was 13.58 per 10 000-person weeks (95% CI, 13.04 to 14.14), which remained near-constant over time despite the increasing disease burden in the country (12.87 to 14.52 per 10 000-person weeks). Consumption of the prophylactic significantly reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 in high-risk groups as compared to their counterparts. Conclusion: The study concludes that Arsenicum album 30 C has a potential prophylactic effect against Covid-19. Further controlled studies are recommended to establish a causal relation.

Homeopathy for COVID-19 Prevention: Report of an Intervention at a Brazilian Service Sector Company.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 quickly became a serious public health problem worldwide, with serious economic and social repercussions. Homeopaths around the world have been studying to find a genus epidemicus (GE) medicine that might help in the prevention and treatment of this disease. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of COVID-19 between employees who received or did not receive a homeopathic GE medicine for disease prevention. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis. The study population comprised all employees of a service sector company in São Paulo, Brazil, and followed up by the corporate Occupational Health department. Intervention consisted of administering Arsenicum album 30cH in a one-weekly dose. Primary outcome was incidence of COVID-19 during 3-months' follow-up (April to July, 2020). RESULTS: We analyzed 1,642 of 1,703 employees without previous diagnosis of COVID-19 at onset of the study period: 53.34% of employees were referred to telework at home and did not receive intervention (Group 1, G1); 24.66% remained working on-premises in the state of São Paulo and received the intervention (Group 2, G2); 21.98% remained working on company premises in other states and did not receive intervention (Group 3, G3). Incidence rate of COVID-19 was respectively 13.35%, 0.74%, and 67.87% (p < 0.001). The odds ratio of being infected in (1) G3 versus G1 was 13.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.21 to 18.39), (2) G3 versus G2 was 283.02 (95% CI, 88.98 to 900.18), and (3) G1 versus G2 was 20.66 (95% CI, 6.53 to 65.39). LIMITATIONS: The present is a retrospective analysis of a real-world experience. We could not ensure direct observed treatment, and neither could we control adherence to general prevention measures outside company premises. CONCLUSION: The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly lower amongst on-premises employees who received the GE medication in comparison to workers who did not receive the intervention (those either at other company premises or teleworking at home).

Effectiveness of Arsenicum album 30C in Prevention of COVID-19 in Individuals Residing in Containment Zones of Delhi-A Prospective, Community-based, Parallel Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This work was undertaken to evaluate the protective effect of Arsenicum album 30C against COVID-19. DESIGN: The work was designed as a prospective parallel cluster cohort study. INTERVENTION: Participants were enrolled in a homeopathy intervention (HI) cohort (who received Arsenicum album) or in a non-intervention (NI) cohort (who received no systematic intervention) from COVID-19 containment areas of Delhi. Individuals of age 5 years or above were given four medicated pills of Arsenicum album 30C, while those from 1 to 5 years old were given two medicated pills in each dose. RESULTS: The analysis included 10,180 individuals residing in 11 COVID-19 containment areas in Delhi, out of which 6,590 individuals were in the HI cohort and 3,590 individuals were in the NI cohort. The overall protective effect of Arsenicum album 30C was 83.43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.77 to 88.17): 45 cases per 6,590 (8.34 per 10,000 person-weeks) in the Arsenicum album 30C group versus 143 cases per 3,590 (45.01 per 10,000 person-weeks) in the NI cohort. The protective effect of Arsenicum album 30C against laboratory confirmed COVID-19 was 74.40% (95% CI, 55.08 to 85.41): 18 cases per 6,590 (3.32 per 10,000 person-weeks) in the Arsenicum album 30C group versus 38 cases per 3,590 (11.85 per 10,000 person-weeks) in the NI cohort. CONCLUSION: The use of Arsenicum album 30C was associated with some protection against probable and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in a containment-zone setting. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm or refute these results.

Individualised Homeopathic Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting in the First Trimester and of COVID-19 in the Third Trimester of Pregnancy-A Case Report.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy are common physiological disturbances, causing physical, social and psychological symptoms in the affected women. Though it is difficult to draw absolute conclusions on whether or not pregnant women are at high risk of acquiring severe consequences from corona-virus disease 2019 (COVID-19), clinical experience has shown them to be potentially vulnerable to other coronaviruses. Lack of specific conventional therapy for these conditions called for a complementary and individualised homeopathy approach in the presented case. METHODS: The homeopathic medical management of early symptoms of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) and the beginning of COVID-19 symptoms shortly before a scheduled Caesarean section is described. No ongoing specific treatments were discontinued. The connection between intervention with individualised homeopathy and clinical improvement was assessed by two independent reviewers using the MOdified NARanjo Criteria for Homeopathy (MONARCH) inventory. RESULTS: There was improvement of NVP symptoms in early pregnancy and in later-onset COVID-19 symptoms following an individually prescribed unipotent homeopathic medicine, Sepia officinalis, after tele-consultation during lockdown. The agreed MONARCH score was +8 points, suggesting that homeopathy contributed to clinical improvement. CONCLUSION: Individualised homeopathy may be a helpful complementary medical approach for managing symptoms associated with NVP and COVID-19 during pregnancy.

Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Feasibility Study, Evaluating the Efficacy of Homeopathic Medicines in the Prevention of COVID-19 in a Quarantined Population.

INTRODUCTION: Exploring preventive therapeutic measures has been among the biggest challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We explored the feasibility and methods of recruitment, retention, and potential signal of efficacy, of selected homeopathic medicines as preventive measure for developing COVID-19 in a multi-group study. METHODS: A six-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prophylaxis study was conducted in a COVID-19 exposed population in a quarantine facility in Mumbai, India. Each group received one of the following: Arsenicum album 30c, Bryonia alba 30c, a combination (Arsenicum album 30c, Bryonia alba 30c, Gelsemium sempervirens 30c, and Influenzinum 30c), coronavirus nosode CVN01 30c, Camphora 1M, or placebo. Six pills twice a day were administered for 3 days. The primary outcome measure used was testing recruitment and retention in this quarantined setting. Secondary outcomes were numbers testing positive for COVID-19 after developing symptoms of illness, number of subjects hospitalized, and days to recovery. RESULTS: Good rates of recruitment and retention were achieved. Of 4,497 quarantined individuals, 2,343 sought enrollment, with 2,294 enrolled and 2,233 completing the trial (49.7% recruitment, 97.3% retention). Subjects who were randomized to either Bryonia alba or to the CVN01 nosode signaled (p <0.10) a lower incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and a shorter period of illness, with evidence of fewer hospitalizations, than those taking placebo. The three other groups did not show signals of efficacy. CONCLUSION: This pilot study supports the feasibility of a larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Bryonia alba 30c and CVN01 30c should both be explored in disease prevention or shortening the course of disease symptomatology in a COVID-19-exposed population.

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.

Impact of Bias in Data Collection of COVID-19 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factor research (PFR), prevalence of symptoms and likelihood ratio (LR) play an important role in identifying prescribing indications of useful homeopathic remedies. It involves meticulous unbiased collection and analysis of data collected during clinical practice. This paper is an attempt to identify causes of bias and suggests ways to mitigate them for improving the accuracy in prescribing for better clinical outcomes and execution of randomized controlled studies. METHODS: A prospective, open label, observational study was performed from April 2020 to December 2020 at two COVID Health Centers. A custom-made Excel spreadsheet containing 71 fields covering a spectrum of COVID-19 symptoms was shared with doctors for regular reporting. Cases suitable for PFR were selected. LR was calculated for commonly occurring symptoms. Outlier values with LR ≥5 were identified and variance of LRs was calculated. RESULTS: Out of 1,889 treated cases of confirmed COVID-19, 1,445 cases were selected for pre-specified reasons. Nine medicines, Arsenicum album, Bryonia alba, Gelsemium sempervirens, Pulsatilla nigricans, Hepar sulphuricus, Magnesia muriaticum, Phosphorus, Nux vomica and Belladonna, were most frequently prescribed. Outlier values and large variance for Hepar sulphuricus and Magnesia muriaticum were noticed as indication of bias. Confirmation bias leading to lowering of symptom threshold, keynote prescribing, and deficiency in checking of all symptoms in each case were identified as the most important sources of bias. CONCLUSION: Careful identification of biases and remedial steps such as training of doctors, regular monitoring of data, checking of all pre-defined symptoms, and multicenter data collection are important steps to mitigate biases.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Nosode: A Potential Alternative Vaccine Platform.

Besides conventional vaccinations, viable alternatives are needed to elicit an immune response against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We propose and highlight the value of a homeopathic approach known as the "nosode" for the prevention of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Nosode is an extract prepared from disease-affected tissues which is subsequently processed and administered as an antidote for the same medical condition. This concept might be a crucial therapeutic approach for viral infections since infected tissues contain a wide range of important viral antigens that could induce a functional host response via immunological sensitization. Thereby, nosode preparation produced from SARS-CoV-2-affected tissues may provide protection against COVID-19. "SARS-CoV-2 nosode" warrants more scientific investigation as a viable alternative vaccination platform. Keywords: COVID-19, Nosode, SARS-CoV-2, Variolation.

Emerging trends from COVID-19 research registered in the Clinical Trials Registry - India.

Since the beginning of the year, the deadly coronavirus pandemic, better known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), brought the entire world to an unprecedented halt. In tandem with the global scenario, researchers in India are actively engaged in the conduct of clinical research to counter the pandemic. This review attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the COVID-19 research in India including design aspects, through the clinical trials registered in the Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) till June 5, 2020. One hundred and twenty two registered trials on COVID-19 were extracted from the CTRI database. These trials were categorized into modern medicine (n=42), traditional medicine (n=67) and miscellaneous (n=13). Of the 42 modern medicine trials, 28 were on repurposed drugs, used singly (n=24) or in combination (n=4). Of these 28 trials, 23 were to evaluate their therapeutic efficacy in different severities of the disease. There were nine registered trials on cell- and plasma-based therapies, two phytopharmaceutical trials and three vaccine trials. The traditional medicine trials category majorly comprised Ayurveda (n=45), followed by homeopathy (n=14) and others (n=8) from Yoga, Siddha and Unani. Among the traditional medicine category, 31 trials were prophylactic and 36 were therapeutic, mostly conducted on asymptomatic or mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. This review would showcase the research being conducted on COVID-19 in the country and highlight the research gaps to steer further studies.

A Homeopathic View of the Influence of Chronic Diseases in the Manifestation of COVID-19.

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) may present variable symptoms among infected individuals, with chronic disease patients appearing as the group most susceptible to present severe pulmonary infection, while having a higher risk of developing complications from the disease. This study demonstrates the relationship between the manifestation of COVID-19 and the presence of chronic miasmatic disease, based on the works of Samuel Hahnemann. The reaction of the individual who previously presented chronic miasmatic disease, when in contact with the stimulus of the epidemic disease, depends on the type of response that the organism was generating in the face of the pre-existing situation: if it is an intense reaction and greater than that which the stimulus of COVID-19 can generate, this individual will not develop the severe form of the epidemic disease; if the reaction is less than that generated by COVID-19, more intense symptoms may appear. Understanding that the presence of a chronic miasmatic disease interferes with the manifestation of COVID-19, which may have repercussions on other organs, can change how one must act on the treatment, as this can alter the individual's health status.

Analysis of Homeopathic Genus Epidemicus for COVID-19 Patients in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy has had documented success treating epidemics in the last two centuries. We aimed to obtain a clear homeopathic clinical picture of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and postulate the genus epidemicus of the disease in order to inform and enhance future treatment and prophylaxis options. METHODS: We conducted a prospective case series study, collecting data from 19 homeopaths in Catalonia, Spain, from patients who presented with fever and/or cough and/or breathlessness and/or confirmed COVID-19 infection or close contact with a confirmed case. We included 107 patients, and data were recorded through a checklist questionnaire on the day of the case analysis and at day 10-15 after commencing treatment. Symptoms were collected and analyzed with the help of homeopathic repertories. RESULTS: A total of 103 cases were mild or moderate; four were severe. The severe cases were excluded from the analysis and the 103 mild and moderate cases were analyzed and a clear overall clinical picture with mental, general, and particular symptoms was achieved. Eighty-eight cases had a complete recorded follow-up. The most prescribed medicines were Bry, Ars, Phos and Gels, whilst those with the best rates of good response were Sulph, Puls and Bry. Time to full recovery after homeopathic treatment ranged from 3.5 to 14.4 days, depending on the medicine used. The potency 200c was associated with faster rates of full recovery and a lesser need to change remedy. CONCLUSION: We have defined the symptomatic homeopathic characteristics of mild and moderate COVID-19 in Spain and established a set of medicines that might be useful to consider as effective genus epidemicus.