HRI London 2023: The Homeopathy Research Community Reunites after a 4-Year Hiatus, Sparking Fresh Collaborations between Researchers 'Old and New'.

The Homeopathy Research Institute's (HRI) 5th international research conference took place in the heart of London, from 16th to 18th June 2023. With 230 attendees from 27 countries, HRI's conferences remain truly international. HRI London 2023 will be remembered for its inspiring blend of 'old and new', with a programme notable for the maturity of the evidence presented by experienced names drawing on decades of work, as well as the enthusiasm and skill of up-and-coming researchers who took the floor to present their new findings. In this report, we present scientific highlights from the event.

HRI Online 2022: Leading International Experts Illustrate the Positive Impact of Increased Collaboration in Homeopathy Research.

The Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) welcomed more than 450 people from 35 countries to their first online event on June 25, 2022. The one-day programme featured an excellent line-up of international speakers and provided a unique interactive platform in keeping with the theme of the event - Key Collaborations in Homeopathy Research. Scientists from a range of different research fields gave an exceptional insight into the current status of homeopathy research. Here we give an overview of the most significant findings in both clinical and basic research presented during HRI Online 2022.

HRI London 2019: 10 Years of Excellence in Homeopathy Research.

The Homeopathy Research Institute's (HRI's) 4th International Research Conference took place in the heart of London from 14 to 16 June 2019. With 352 attendees from 38 countries, this was HRI's largest and most international conference to date. HRI London 2019 will be remembered for the highest quality scientific programme so far, combined with a vibrant, positive atmosphere throughout, making it the perfect way to celebrate HRI's 10th Anniversary. Here we summarise the science presented during the intense 2.5-day programme.

Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, chronic disorder that leads to decreased health-related quality of life and work productivity. A previous version of this review was not able to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for IBS and recommended that further high quality RCTs were conducted to explore the clinical and cost effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for IBS. Two types of homeopathic treatment were evaluated in this systematic review: 1. Clinical homeopathy where a specific remedy is prescribed for a specific condition; 2. Individualised homeopathic treatment, where a homeopathic remedy based on a person's individual symptoms is prescribed after a detailed consultation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of homeopathic treatment for IBS. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialised Register and trials registers from inception to 31 August 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies that compared homeopathic treatment with placebo, other control treatments, or usual care, in adults with IBS were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was global improvement in IBS as measured by an IBS symptom severity score. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, abdominal pain, stool frequency, stool consistency, and adverse events. The overall certainty of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (307 participants) were included. Two studies compared clinical homeopathy (homeopathic remedy, asafoetida or asafoetida plus nux vomica) to placebo for IBS with constipation (IBS-C). One study compared individualised homeopathic treatment (consultation plus remedy) to usual care for the treatment of IBS in female patients. One study was a three armed RCT comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to supportive listening or usual care. The risk of bias in three studies (the two studies assessing clinical homeopathy and the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care) was unclear on most criteria and high for selective reporting in one of the clinical homeopathy studies. The three armed study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care and supportive listening was at low risk of bias in four of the domains and high risk of bias in two (performance bias and detection bias).A meta-analysis of the studies assessing clinical homeopathy, (171 participants with IBS-C) was conducted. At short-term follow-up of two weeks, global improvement in symptoms was experienced by 73% (46/63) of asafoetida participants compared to 45% (30/66) of placebo participants (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.18; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). In the other clinical homeopathy study at two weeks, 68% (13/19) of those in the asafoetida plus nux vomica arm and 52% (12/23) of those in the placebo arm experienced a global improvement in symptoms (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.15; very low certainty evidence). In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care (N = 20), the mean global improvement score (feeling unwell) at 12 weeks was 1.44 + 4.55 (n = 9) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 1.41 + 1.97 (n=11) in the usual care arm (MD 0.03; 95% CI -3.16 to 3.22; very low certainty evidence).In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care, the mean IBS symptom severity score at 6 months was 210.44 + 112.4 (n = 16) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 237.3 + 110.22 (n = 60) in the usual care arm (MD -26.86, 95% CI -88.59 to 34.87; low certainty evidence). The mean quality of life score (EQ-5D) at 6 months in homeopathy participants was 69.07 (SD 17.35) compared to 63.41 (SD 23.31) in usual care participants (MD 5.66, 95% CI -4.69 to 16.01; low certainty evidence).For In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to supportive listening, the mean IBS symptom severity score at 6 months was 210.44 + 112.4 (n = 16) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 262 + 120.72 (n = 18) in the supportive listening arm (MD -51.56, 95% CI -129.94 to 26.82; very low certainty evidence). The mean quality of life score at 6 months in homeopathy participants was 69.07 (SD 17.35) compared to 63.09 (SD 24.38) in supportive listening participants (MD 5.98, 95% CI -8.13 to 20.09; very low certainty evidence).None of the included studies reported on abdominal pain, stool frequency, stool consistency, or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy for the treatment of IBS can be drawn. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are required to assess the efficacy and safety of clinical and individualised homeopathy for IBS compared to placebo or usual care.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised, Other-than-Placebo Controlled, Trials of Individualised Homeopathic Treatment.

BACKGROUND: This study focuses on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment (IHT) in which the control (comparator) group was other than placebo (OTP). AIMS: To determine the comparative effectiveness of IHT on health-related outcomes in adults and children for any clinical condition that has been the subject of at least one OTP-controlled trial. For each study, to assess the risk of bias and to determine whether its study attitude was predominantly 'pragmatic' or 'explanatory'. METHODS: Systematic review. For each eligible trial, published in the peer-reviewed literature up to the end of 2015, we assessed its risk of bias (internal validity) using the seven-domain Cochrane tool, and its relative pragmatic or explanatory attitude (external validity) using the 10-domain PRECIS tool. We grouped RCTs by whether they examined IHT as an alternative treatment (study design Ia), adjunctively with another intervention (design Ib), or compared with a no-intervention group (design II). For each RCT, we identified a 'main outcome measure' to use in meta-analysis: 'relative effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR; values >1 favouring homeopathy) or standardised mean difference (SMD; values < 0 favouring homeopathy). RESULTS: Eleven RCTs, representing 11 different medical conditions, were eligible for study. Five of the RCTs (four of which in design Ib) were judged to have pragmatic study attitude, two were explanatory, and four were equally pragmatic and explanatory. Ten trials were rated 'high risk of bias' overall: one of these, a pragmatic study with design Ib, had high risk of bias solely regarding participant blinding (a bias that is intrinsic to such trials); the other trial was rated 'uncertain risk of bias' overall. Eight trials had data that were extractable for analysis: for four heterogeneous trials with design Ia, the pooled OR was statistically non-significant; collectively for three clinically heterogeneous trials with design Ib, there was a statistically significant SMD favouring adjunctive IHT; in the remaining trial of design 1a, IHT was non-inferior to fluoxetine in the treatment of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low quality, the small number and the heterogeneity of studies, the current data preclude a decisive conclusion about the comparative effectiveness of IHT. Generalisability of findings is limited by the variable external validity identified overall; the most pragmatic study attitude was associated with RCTs of adjunctive IHT. Future OTP-controlled trials in homeopathy should aim, as far as possible, to promote both internal validity and external validity.

HRI Malta 2017-Cutting Edge Research in Homeopathy: HRI's Third International Research Conference in Malta.

The third international conference on "Cutting Edge Research in Homeopathy" organised by the Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) was held on the inspiring and historic island of Malta from 9th to 11th of June, 2017. One hundred and two abstracts underwent peer review by the HRI Scientific Advisory Committee and external experts to produce the programme of 36 oral presentations and 37 posters, presented by researchers from 19 countries. The 2.5-day programme covered a diverse range of topics, including quantitative and qualitative clinical research, basic research, veterinary research, and provings. These intensive plenary and parallel sessions were interspersed with multiple opportunities for delegates to discuss and exchange ideas, in particular through interactive panel discussions and a pre-conference workshop. The continuing commitment of the homeopathy research community to generate high-quality studies in this rapidly evolving field was clear. In this conference report, we present highlights from this memorable event.

Cutting Edge Research in Homeopathy: HRI's second international research conference in Rome.

Rome, 3rd-5th June 2015, was the setting for the Homeopathy Research Institute's (HRI) second conference with the theme 'Cutting Edge Research in Homeopathy'. Attended by over 250 delegates from 39 countries, this event provided an intense two and a half day programme of presentations and a forum for the sharing of ideas and the creation of international scientific collaborations. With 35 oral presentations from leaders in the field, the scientific calibre of the programme was high and the content diverse. This report summarises the key themes underpinning the cutting edge data presented by the speakers, including six key-note presentations, covering advancements in both basic and clinical research. Given the clear commitment of the global homeopathic community to high quality research, the resounding success of both Barcelona 2013 and Rome 2015 HRI conferences, and the dedicated support of colleagues, the HRI moves confidently forward towards the next biennial conference.

Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, chronic disorder that leads to decreased health-related quality of life and work productivity. Evidence-based treatment guidelines have not been able to give guidance on the effects of homeopathic treatment for IBS because no systematic reviews have been carried out to assess the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for IBS. Two types of homeopathic treatment were evaluated in this systematic review. In clinical homeopathy a specific remedy is prescribed for a specific condition. This differs from individualised homeopathic treatment, where a homeopathic remedy based on a person's individual symptoms is prescribed after a detailed consultation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of homeopathic treatment for treating IBS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field Specialised Register and the database of the Homeopathic Library (Hom-inform) from inception to February 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies that compared homeopathic treatment with placebo, other control treatments, or usual care, in adults with IBS were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was global improvement in IBS. The overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs (213 participants) were included. No cohort or case-control studies were identified. Two studies published in 1976 and 1979 compared clinical homeopathy (homeopathic remedy) to placebo for constipation-predominant IBS. One study published in 1990 compared individualised homeopathic treatment (consultation plus remedy) to usual care (defined as high doses of dicyclomine hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents and diet sheets asking the patient to take a high fibre diet) for the treatment of IBS in female patients. Due to the low quality of reporting in the included studies the risk of bias in all three studies was unclear on most criteria and high for some criteria. A meta-analysis of two small studies (129 participants with constipation-predominant IBS) found a statistically significant difference in global improvement between the homeopathic remedy asafoetida and placebo at a short-term follow-up of two weeks. Seventy-three per cent of patients in the homeopathy group improved compared to 45% of placebo patients (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.18). There was no statistically significant difference in global improvement between the homeopathic remedies asafoetida plus nux vomica and placebo. Sixty-eight per cent of patients in the homeopathy group improved compared to 52% of placebo patients (1 study, N = 42, RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.15). GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the outcome global improvement as very low due to high or unknown risk of bias, short-term follow-up and sparse data. There was no statistically significant difference found between individualised homeopathic treatment and usual care (1 RCT, N = 20) for the outcome "feeling unwell", where the participant scored how "unwell" they felt before, and after treatment (MD 0.03; 95% CI -3.16 to 3.22). None of the included studies reported on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A pooled analysis of two small studies suggests a possible benefit for clinical homeopathy, using the remedy asafoetida, over placebo for people with constipation-predominant IBS. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of reporting in these trials, high or unknown risk of bias, short-term follow-up, and sparse data. One small study found no statistically difference between individualised homeopathy and usual care (defined as high doses of dicyclomine hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents and diet sheets advising a high fibre diet). No conclusions can be drawn from this study due to the low number of participants and the high risk of bias in this trial. In addition, it is likely that usual care has changed since this trial was conducted. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are required to assess the efficacy and safety of clinical and individualised homeopathy compared to placebo or usual care.