Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment with additional enrollment to a homeopathic integrated care contract in Germany.

BACKGROUND: A number of German statutory health insurance companies are offering integrated care contracts for homeopathy (ICCHs) that cover the reimbursement of homeopathic treatment. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these contracts are highly debated. METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment after an additional enrollment in an ICCH, a comparative, prospective, observational study was conducted in which participants in the ICCH (HOM group) were compared with matched (on diagnosis, sex and age) insured individuals (CON group) who received usual care alone. Those insured with either migraine or headache, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis and depression were included. Primary effectiveness outcomes were the baseline adjusted scores of diagnosis-specific questionnaires (e.g. RQLQ, AQLQ, DLQI, BDI-II) after 6 months. Primary cost-effectiveness endpoints were the baseline adjusted total costs from an insurer perspective in relation to the achieved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were derived from health claims data and QALYs were calculated based on SF-12 data. RESULTS: Data from 2524 participants (1543 HOM group) were analyzed. The primary effectiveness outcomes after six months were statistically significant in favor of the HOM group for migraine or headache (Δ = difference between groups, days with headache: - 0.9, p = 0.042), asthma (Δ-AQLQ(S): + 0.4, p = 0.014), atopic dermatitis (Δ-DLQI: - 5.6, p ≤ 0.001) and depression (Δ-BDI-II: - 5.6, p ≤ 0.001). BDI-II differences reached the minimal clinically important difference. For all diagnoses, the adjusted mean total costs over 12 months were higher in the HOM group from an insurer perspective, with migraine or headache, atopic dermatitis and depression suggesting cost-effectiveness in terms of additional costs per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: After an additional enrollment in the ICCH, the treatment of participants with depression showed minimally clinically relevant improvements. From an insurer perspective, treatment with an ICCH enrollment resulted in higher costs over all diagnoses but seemed to be cost-effective for migraine or headache, atopic dermatitis and depression according to international used threshold values. Based on the study design and further limitations, our findings should be considered cautiously and no conclusions regarding the effectiveness of specific treatment components can be made. Further research is needed to overcome limitations of this study and to confirm our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01854580. Registered 15 March 2013 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01854580.

What Future for Hahnemann's Therapeutic System?

This article explores the historical growth patterns in homeopathy, recent shifts in perception, and a likely future of this type of medicine. Homeopathic medicine developed as a contradictory approach to health compared to the orthodox view of mainstream medicine. Over the past two centuries, this form of health care has maintained its heterodox position under continued attacks from the established order. Modern medicine is being pushed by materialism and the drive to generate profits by large pharmaceutical and health care corporations. Whilst homeopathy has also enjoyed economic growth in many markets around the world, rising popularity of this type of treatment has been shown to generate regulatory concerns on some fronts. Recent pressures from regulatory authorities have resulted in both setbacks and improved situations for homeopathic prescribers, varying by country where they are located. Despite widespread attacks in the press and from some governmental authorities, users of homeopathic therapies remain staunchly attached to this form of treatment. The future of homeopathy will likely continue to be as rocky as it has been for the past two centuries.

[Sociodemographic profile of the homeopathy user in Spain]. / Perfil sociodemográfico del usuario de la homeopatía en España.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the sociodemographic profile of the homeopathy user in Spain. DESIGN: Quantitative study. LOCATION: Spain. CORPUS: The Centre for Sociological Research database (Study 3205, February 2018), with a total of 2,486 interviews, and the sub-sample that includes all patients who have claimed to use homeopathy in Spain in the last 12 months (n=124). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The percentages, means and/or standard deviation of the factors were calculated, as well as the significance of the changes in the different variables analysed in the general population, and the specific users of homeopathy in Spain. This was determined by the variance analysis or Pearson's χ2 test, depending on the nature of the variable in the study. RESULTS: The homeopathy user-type profile in Spain is a woman, of middle/high social status, with higher university studies, and with a progressive political ideology. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish profile is similar to that in other international studies.

USE OF COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE IN GEORGIA.

In Georgia, like in most countries globally, people commonly resort to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, not much is known about CAM practices there. The aim of the study was to document common practices of CAM in Georgia and related patient attitudes. We collected data from peoples who commonly use CAM at 20 service provision centers in Georgia using cluster sampling from 300 patients. We admininstered a cross-sectional survey and conducted descriptive statistical analyses. People in Georgia use CAM either for prevention to improve general health (33%) or to treat chronic conditions (36%), spending about 25 Euros per month out of pocket. Most (77%) get their knowledge about CAM from family or friends , less than half (44%) from books or media, and 11% from medical providers. A close person's advice or experience was the most common rationale given for CAM use (54%). In our sample, 17% either don't trust or are unsatisfied with conventional medicine, 29% found CAM treatment "very effective" and 61% "quite/partially" effective; only 5% not effective. Conventional treatment was stopped in half of the cases. 35% of respondents informed their physicians of their CAM use, while about half did not. Public mistrust towards conventional medicine, CAM user high satisfaction, relatively low cost of such services in Georgia - are the factors letting us to suggest that CAM use will further increase. Frequent self taking decisions made by patients to stop physician prescribed treatment, not informing physicians on CAM use, as well as other factors put patients health at risk. Further research and capacity building in practice, education and other related aspects are needed to establish evidence-based regulation and standards for CAM in Georgia that ensure informed decision making and patient safety.

A retrospective cost-analysis of additional homeopathic treatment in Germany: Long-term economic outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide a long-term cost comparison of patients using additional homeopathic treatment (homeopathy group) with patients using usual care (control group) over an observation period of 33 months. METHODS: Health claims data from a large statutory health insurance company were analysed from both the societal perspective (primary outcome) and from the statutory health insurance perspective (secondary outcome). To compare costs between patient groups, homeopathy and control patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Predictor variables for the propensity scores included health care costs and both medical and demographic variables. Health care costs were analysed using an analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline costs, between groups both across diagnoses and for specific diagnoses over a period of 33 months. Specific diagnoses included depression, migraine, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and headache. RESULTS: Data from 21,939 patients in the homeopathy group (67.4% females) and 21,861 patients in the control group (67.2% females) were analysed. Health care costs over the 33 months were 12,414 EUR [95% CI 12,022-12,805] in the homeopathy group and 10,428 EUR [95% CI 10,036-10,820] in the control group (p<0.0001). The largest cost differences were attributed to productivity losses (homeopathy: EUR 6,289 [6,118-6,460]; control: EUR 5,498 [5,326-5,670], p<0.0001) and outpatient costs (homeopathy: EUR 1,794 [1,770-1,818]; control: EUR 1,438 [1,414-1,462], p<0.0001). Although the costs of the two groups converged over time, cost differences remained over the full 33 months. For all diagnoses, homeopathy patients generated higher costs than control patients. CONCLUSION: The analysis showed that even when following-up over 33 months, there were still cost differences between groups, with higher costs in the homeopathy group.

Homeopathy in France in 2011-2012 according to reimbursements in the French national health insurance database (SNIIRAM).

BACKGROUND: The use of homeopathic medicine is poorly described and the frequency of combined allopathic and homeopathic prescriptions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To analyse data on medicines, prescribers and patients for homeopathic prescriptions that are reimbursed by French national health insurance. METHODS: The French national health insurance databases (SNIIRAM) were used to analyse prescriptions of reimbursed homeopathic drugs or preparations in the overall French population, during the period July 2011-June 2012. RESULTS: A total of 6,705,420 patients received at least one reimbursement for a homeopathic preparation during the 12-month period, i.e. 10.2% of the overall population, with a predominance in females (68%) and a peak frequency observed in children aged 0-4 years (18%). About one third of patients had only one reimbursement, and one half of patients had three or more reimbursements. A total of 120,110 healthcare professionals (HCPs) prescribed at least one homeopathic drug or preparation. They represented 43.5% of the overall population of HCPs, nearly 95% of general practitioners, dermatologists and pediatricians, and 75% of midwives. Homeopathy accounted for 5% of the total number of drug units prescribed by HCPs. Allopathic medicines were coprescribed with 55% of homeopathic prescriptions. CONCLUSION: Many HCPs occasionally prescribe reimbursed homeopathic preparations, representing however a small percentage of reimbursements compared to allopathic medicines. About 10% of the French population, particularly young children and women, received at least one homeopathic preparation during the year. In more than one half of cases, reimbursed homeopathic preparations are prescribed in combination with allopathic medicines.

Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review.

CONTEXT: Economic evaluations of commonly used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies such as homeopathy are needed to contribute to the evidence base on which policy makers, clinicians, health-care payers, as well as patients base their health-care decisions in an era of constrained resources. OBJECTIVES: To review and assess existing economic evaluations of homeopathy. METHODS: Literature search was made to retrieve relevant publications using AMED, the Cochrane Library, CRD (DARE, NHS EED, HTA), EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the journal Homeopathy (former British Homoeopathic Journal). A hand search of relevant publications was carried out. Homeopathy researchers were contacted. Identified publications were independently assessed by two authors. RESULTS: Fifteen relevant articles reported on 14 economic evaluations of homeopathy. Thirteen studies reported numbers of patients: a total of 3,500 patients received homeopathic treatment (median 97, interquartile range 48-268), and 10 studies reported on control group participants (median 57, IQR 40-362). Eight out of 14 studies found improvements in patients' health together with cost savings. Four studies found that improvements in homeopathy patients were at least as good as in control group patients, at comparable costs. Two studies found improvements similar to conventional treatment, but at higher costs. Studies were highly heterogeneous and had several methodological weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS: Although the identified evidence of the costs and potential benefits of homeopathy seemed promising, studies were highly heterogeneous and had several methodological weaknesses. It is therefore not possible to draw firm conclusions based on existing economic evaluations of homeopathy. Recommendations for future research are presented.

[The situation of complementary medicine in Germany]. / Zur lage der komplementärmedizin in Deutschland.

With the amendment of the German Medicinal Products Act in 1976 and the inclusion of naturopathy and homeopathy into the German Medical Licensure Act from 1988, the German government set up a comparatively favorable framework for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). But no comprehensive integration into the academic operating systems followed, because the universities as well as the legislative body seemed to have no further interest in CAM. Therefore, research projects in the field and suitable professorships had and still have to be financed by third-party funds. Notwithstanding the success of several CAM-projects, no sustainable development could be established: When the third-party funding runs off and the protagonists retire the institutional structures are supposed to vanish as well. Although the public demand for CAM is high in Germany, the administration detached homeopathy as a compulsory subject from the German Medical Licensure Act in 2002 and restricted severely the refunding of naturopathic medicines by the statutory health insurance in 2004. Moreover, the trend for CAM bashing takes root in the media. Unfortunately the CAM scene does not close ranks and is incapable to implement fundamental data collection processes into daily clinical routine: A wide range of data could justify further efforts to the government as well as to the scientific community. To say something positive, it must be mentioned that the scientific standard of CAM research is high for the most part and that third-party funded projects deliver remarkable results ever and on.

Comparative effectiveness of homoeopathic vs. conventional therapy in usual care of atopic eczema in children: long-term medical and economic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: One in five children visiting a homeopathic physician suffers from atopic eczema. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the long-term effectiveness, safety and costs of homoeopathic vs. conventional treatment in usual medical care of children with atopic eczema. METHODS: In this prospective multi-centre comparative observational non-randomized rater-blinded study, 135 children (48 homoeopathy, 87 conventional) with mild to moderate atopic eczema were included by their respective physicians. Depending on the specialisation of the physician, the primary treatment was either standard conventional treatment or individualized homeopathy as delivered in routine medical care. The main outcome was the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) at 36 months by a blinded rater. Further outcomes included quality of life, conventional medicine consumption, safety and disease related costs at six, 12 and 36 months after baseline. A multilevel ANCOVA was used, with physician as random effect and the following fixed effects: age, gender, baseline value, severity score, social class and parents' expectation. RESULTS: The adjusted mean SCORAD showed no significant differences between the groups at 36 months (13.7 95% CI [7.9-19.5] vs. 14.9 [10.4-19.4], p = 0.741). The SCORAD response rates at 36 months were similar in both groups (33% response: homoeopathic 63.9% vs. conventional 64.5%, p = 0.94; 50% response: 52.0% vs. 52.3%, p = 0.974). Total costs were higher in the homoeopathic versus the conventional group (months 31-36 200.54 Euro [132.33-268.76] vs. 68.86 Euro [9.13-128.58], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Taking patient preferences into account, while being unable to rule out residual confounding, in this long-term observational study, the effects of homoeopathic treatment were not superior to conventional treatment for children with mild to moderate atopic eczema, but involved higher costs.

Utilization and costs of conventional and alternative pharmaceuticals in children: results from the German GINIplus and LISAplus birth cohort studies.

PURPOSE: The socioeconomic determinants for drug utilization, especially in children, have not been investigated sufficiently so far. The study's aim was the estimation of prevalences and determinants of conventional, homeopathic and phytotherapeutic drugs and expenditures. METHODS: Population-based data on drug utilization of 3,642 children in two German birth cohorts (GINIplus and LISAplus, 10-year follow-up) were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. For analysis, the reported drugs (use within the last four weeks) were classified into the therapeutic categories of 'conventional medicine', 'homeopathy', 'phytotherapy' and 'others'. Drug costs were estimated using pharmaceutical identification numbers. RESULTS: In all, 42.3% of the children reported drug use; 24.1% of the drugs were homeopathic and 11.5% were phytotherapeutic. The proportion of children who took at least one homeopathic remedy was 14.3%. Drugs prescribed by physicians were dominated by conventional medicine (76.5%), whereas in non-prescribed drugs, both homeopathy and conventional medicine accounted for 37% each. Boys (OR = 0.78) used less homeopathy than girls. Income showed only a weak influence. Education had a strong effect on the use of phytotherapy such that children of mothers with higher school education (>10 years vs. <10 years) used more phytotherapy (OR = 2.01). If out-of-pocket payments arose (n = 613), the mean was €20. On average, total drug expenditures summed up to €39 in 4 weeks for drug users if only clearly identifiable prices for drugs were considered (58% of all data). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of homeopathy is common in children from the analyzed cohort. User profiles of homeopathy and phytotherapy differ from each other and should be analyzed separately.