Overview and quality assessment of health economic evaluations for homeopathic therapy: an updated systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Likewise other medical interventions, economic evaluations of homeopathy contribute to the evidence base of therapeutic concepts and are needed for socioeconomic decision-making. A 2013 review was updated and extended to gain a current overview. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the terms 'cost' and 'homeopathy' from January 2012 to July 2022 was performed in electronic databases. Two independent reviewers checked records, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Six studies were added to 15 from the previous review. Synthesizing both health outcomes and costs showed homeopathic treatment being at least equally effective for less or similar costs than control in 14 of 21 studies. Three found improved outcomes at higher costs, two of which showed cost-effectiveness for homeopathy by incremental analysis. One found similar results and three similar outcomes at higher costs for homeopathy. CHEC values ranged between two and 16, with studies before 2009 having lower values (Mean ± SD: 6.7 ± 3.4) than newer studies (9.4 ± 4.3). CONCLUSION: Although results of the CHEC assessment show a positive chronological development, the favorable cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatments seen in a small number of high-quality studies is undercut by too many examples of methodologically poor research.

To help make decisions about homeopathy in healthcare, it is important, as with other medical treatments, to look at whether this treatment is effective in relation to its costs; in other words, to see if it is cost-effective. The aim of the current work was to update the picture of scientific studies available on this topic until 2012. To this purpose, two different researchers screened electronic literature databases for studies between January 2012 and July 2022 which assessed both the costs and the effects of a homeopathic treatment. They did this according to strict rules to make sure that no important study was missed. They reviewed the search results, gathered information from the studies, and assessed the quality of the studies using a set of criteria. They detected six additional new studies to the 15 already known from the previous work. Overall, they found that in 14 out of 21 studies, homeopathic treatment was at least equally effective for less or similar costs. For the remaining seven studies, costs were equal or higher for homeopathy. Of these seven, two were shown to be advantageous for homeopathy: indeed, specific economic analyses demonstrated that the benefit of the homeopathic treatment compensated for the higher costs. For the remaining five studies, the higher or equal costs of homeopathic treatment were not compensated by a better effect. The quality of the studies varied, with older studies generally being of lower quality compared to newer ones. The authors concluded that although the quality of research on homeopathy's cost-effectiveness has improved over time, and some high-quality studies show that it can be a cost-effective option, there are still many poorly conducted studies which make it difficult to offer a definitive statement. In other words, while there is some evidence that homeopathy can be effective in relation to its costs, there are still many studies that are not very reliable, which means that interested parties need to be cautious about drawing conclusions.

A Comparative Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial on the Effectiveness, Safety, and Tolerability of a Homeopathic Medicinal Product in Children with Sleep Disorders and Restlessness.

A prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial was performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the homeopathic product ZinCyp-3-02 in children with sleep disorders for ≥ one month compared to glycine. Children ≤ six years old received either ZinCyp-3-02 (N = 89) or comparator glycine (N = 90). After treatment for 28 days, total sleep-disorder-associated complaints severity scores decreased in both groups from median 7.0 (out of maximum 11.0) points to 2.0 (ZinCyp-3-02) and 4.0 (glycine) points, respectively, with overall higher odds of showing improvement for ZinCyp-3-02 (odds ratio: 4.45 (95% CI: 2.77-7.14), p < 0.0001, POM overall treatment related effect). Absence of individual complaints (time to sleep onset, difficulties maintaining sleep, sleep duration, troubled sleep (somniloquism), physical inactivity after awakening, restlessness for unknown reason, and sleep disorders frequency) at study end were significantly higher with ZinCyp-3-02 (all p values < 0.05). More children with ZinCyp-3-02 were totally free of complaints (p = 0.0258). Treatment effectiveness (p < 0.0001) and satisfaction assessments (p < 0.0001) were more favorable for ZinCyp-3-02. Few nonserious adverse drug reactions were reported (ZinCyp-3-02: N = 2, glycine: N = 1) and both treatments were well tolerated. Treatment with the homeopathic product ZinCyp-3-02 was found to be safe and superior to the comparator glycine in the treatment of sleep disorders in children.

Effectiveness, safety and tolerability of a complex homeopathic medicinal product in the prevention of recurrent acute upper respiratory tract infections in children: a multicenter, open, comparative, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The present study was initiated to investigate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of complex homeopathic CalSuli-4-02 tablets on prevention of recurrent acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) in children, in comparison to another complex homeopathic product. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open, clinical trial with two parallel treatment groups at four outpatient pediatric clinics in Russia. Children aged ≤ 6 years with susceptibility to acute URTIs (≥ three occasions during the last 6 months) were randomized to receive either CalSuli-4-02 or a comparator homeopathic product (control group) for 3 weeks. Primary outcome was the frequency of acute URTIs after 3 and 6 months post-treatment follow-up. Secondary endpoints were changes in complaints and symptoms (total and individual scores), treatment satisfaction, antibiotic use, safety and tolerability. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis involved 200 children (CalSuli-4-02: N = 99, CONTROL: N = 101). In both treatment groups, the median number of acute URTIs was one for 3 months and two, respectively, for the full 6 months post-treatment (Relative Risk: 0.86 (95 %-CI: 0.72-1.03), p = 0.1099). Seasons had no influence on the outcome. At the end of study, CalSuli-4-02 had overall higher odds of getting lower complaints severity total score (Odds ratio: 1.99 (95 %-CI: 1.31-3.02), p = 0.0012) and showing symptom improvement (Odds ratio: 1.93 (95 %-CI: 1.25-3.00), p = 0.0033). Specifically, the complaint "appetite disorder" and the symptom "child's activities" significantly improved more in the CalSuli-4-02 group (p = 0.0135 and p = 0.0063, respectively). Antibiotic use was decreased in both treatment groups at the study end. Overall assessment for satisfaction with and tolerability of treatment was higher with CalSuli-4-02. A low number of non-serious adverse drug reactions was reported (CalSuli-4-02: N = 4, CONTROL: N = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Both complex homeopathic products led to a comparable reduction of URTIs. In the CalSuli-4-02 group, significantly less URTI-related complaints and symptoms and higher treatment satisfaction and tolerability were detected. The observation that the use of antibiotics was reduced upon treatment with the complex homeopathic medications, without the occurrence of complications, is interesting and warrants further investigations on the potential of CalSuli-4-02 as an antibiotic sparing option. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Roszdravnadzor: Study No 164-563.

The Effectiveness and Safety of a Homeopathic Medicinal Product in Pediatric Upper Respiratory Tract Infections With Fever: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

We investigated the clinical effectiveness of a homeopathic add-on therapy in a pediatric subpopulation with upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) in a randomized, controlled, multinational clinical trial. Patients received either on-demand symptomatic standard treatment (ST-group) or the same ST plus a homeopathic medication (Influcid; IFC-group) for 7 days. Outcome assessment was based on symptom and fever resolution and the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey-21 (WURSS-21). A total of 261 pediatric (<12 years) patients (130 IFC-group; 131 ST-group) were recruited in Germany and the Ukraine. The IFC-group used less symptomatic medication, symptoms resolved significantly earlier (P = .0001), had higher proportions of fever-free children from day 3 onwards, and the WURSS-assessed global disease severity was significantly less (P < .0001) during the entire URTI episode. One adverse event (vomiting) was possibly related to IFC. IFC as add-on treatment in pediatric URTI reduced global disease severity, shortened symptom resolution, and was safe in use.