Search

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) in treating hemorrhoids compared with placebo. Design: This is a double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: The trial was conducted at the surgery outpatient department of the State National Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. Subjects: Patients were 140 women and men, aged between 18 and 65 years, with a diagnosis of primary hemorrhoids grades I–III for at least 3 months. Excluded were the patients with grade IV hemorrhoids, anal fissure, and fistula, hypertrophic anal papillae, inflammatory bowel disease, coagulation disorders, rectal malignancies, obstructed portal circulation, patients requiring immediate surgical intervention, and vulnerable samples. Interventions: Patients were randomized to Group 1 (n = 70; IHMs plus concomitant care; verum) and Group 2 (n = 70; placebos plus concomitant care; control). Outcome measures: Primary—the anorectal symptom severity and quality-of-life (ARSSQoL) questionnaire, and secondary—the EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS); all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Results: Out of the 140 randomized patients, 122 were protocol compliant. Intention-to-treat sample (n = 140) was analyzed. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 two tailed. Statistically significant between-group differences were elicited in the ARSSQoL total (Mann–Whitney U [MWU]: 1227.0, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (MWU: 1228.0, p = 0.001) favoring homeopathy against placebos. Sulfur was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either of the groups. Conclusions: IHMs demonstrated superior results over placebo in the short-term treatment of hemorrhoids of grades I–III. The findings are promising, but need to be substantiated by further phase 3 trials. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2020/03/024342. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction This study aimed at examining the feasibility issues of comparing individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) with identical-looking placebos for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods Forty eligible patients participated in this double-blind, randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled feasibility trial in the outpatient clinics of a homeopathic hospital in West Bengal, India. Either IHMs or identical-looking placebos were administered, along with mutually agreed-upon concomitant care guidelines. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was the primary outcome measure, along with derived Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores from KOOS. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were the secondary outcomes. All were measured at baseline and after 2 months. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were estimated using an intention-to-treat approach. p -Values less than 0.05 (two-tailed) were considered statistically significant. Results Enrolment/screening and trial retention rates were 43% and 85% respectively. Recruitment was difficult owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown. Group differences were statistically significant, favoring IHMs against placebos in all the KOOS sub-scales: symptoms (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.002), activities of daily living (p < 0.001), sports or recreation (p = 0.016), and quality of life (p = 0.002). Derived WOMAC scores from KOOS favored IHMs against placebos: stiffness (p < 0.001) and pain (p < 0.001). The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire score (p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores (p < 0.001) also yielded significant results, favoring IHMs over placebos. All the effect sizes ranged from moderate to large. Sulphur was the most frequently prescribed homeopathic medication. Neither group reported any harm or serious adverse events. Conclusion Although recruitment was sub-optimal due to prevailing COVID-19 conditions during the trial, the action of IHMs was found to be superior to that of placebos in the treatment of knee OA. Larger and more definitive studies, with independent replications, are warranted in order to substantiate the findings. Trial registration: CTRI/2021/02/031453. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Sciatica is a debilitating condition that causes pain in its distribution or in the lumbosacral nerve root that is connected to it. Although there are claims that homeopathy can reduce sciatica pain, systematic scientific proof is currently lacking. The objective of the trial was to determine whether individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) were as effective as identical-looking placebos in treating sciatica pain. Design: This is a double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: The study was conducted at Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Howrah, West Bengal, India. Subjects: Sixty participants with sciatica pain were included in this study. Interventions: Verum (n = 30; IHMs plus concomitant care) versus control (n = 30; placebos plus concomitant care). Outcome measures: Primary—Sciatica Bothersome Index (SBI) and Sciatica Frequency Index (SFI) scores and secondary—Roland Morris Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMPDQ), Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire (OLBPQ) scores: all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Results: Intention-to-treat sample (n = 60) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated measure analysis of variance, primarily accounting for between groups and time interactions, and additionally, by unpaired t tests comparing the estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at p < 0.025 and <0.05 two tailed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Group differences could not achieve significance in SBI (p = 0.044), SFI (p = 0.080), and RMPDQ scores (p = 0.134), but were significant for SF-MPQ (p = 0.007) and OLBPQ (p = 0.036). Gnaphalium polycephalum (n = 6; 10%) was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm, serious adverse events, or intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. Conclusions: The primary outcome failed to demonstrate evidently that homeopathy was effective beyond placebo, and the trial remained inconclusive. Independent replications are warranted to confirm the findings. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2020/10/028617. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pre-diabetes (PD) contributes importantly to the disease burden worldwide and is a precursor to stroke, cardiovascular diseases, as well as type-2 diabetes mellitus. Objective In this project, the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) was explored against placebos in the treatment of PD. Methods A 6-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the outpatient departments of a homeopathic medical college and hospital in India. Sixty participants with PD were randomized to receive either IHMs (n = 30) or identical-looking placebos (n = 30). Concomitant care measures were advised to both groups of participants in terms of dietary advice, yoga, meditation and exercise. The primary outcome measures were fasting blood sugar (FBS) and the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); the secondary outcome was the Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (DSC-R) score. All the outcomes were measured at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Inter-group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance models after adjusting baseline differences using analysis of co-variance on the intention-to-treat data. Results Between-group differences for FBS were statistically significant, favoring IHMs against placebos (F1,58 = 7.798, p = 0.007), but not for OGTT (F1,58 = 1.691, p = 0.199). The secondary outcome, DSC-R total score, favoring IHMs significantly compared with placebos (F1,58 = 15.752, p < 0.001). Calcarea Carbonicum , Thuja occidentalis and Sulphur were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harm or serious adverse events were recorded from either of the participant groups. Conclusion IHMs produced significantly better results than placebos in FBS and in DSC-R scores but not in OGTT. Independent replications with larger sample sizes are warranted to substantiate the findings. Trial registration CTRI/2019/10/021711 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Lumbar spondylosis (LS) is a degenerative disorder of the lumbar spine. Despite substantial research efforts, no gold-standard treatment for LS has been identified. The efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) in LS has remained under-researched. In this study, the efficacy of IHMs was compared with identical-looking placebos in the treatment of low back pain associated with LS. Methods A double-blind, randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the National Institute of Homoeopathy, West Bengal, India. Patients were randomized to receive IHMs or placebos, along with standardized concomitant care for both the groups. The Oswestry low back pain and disability questionnaire (ODQ) was the primary outcome; the Roland-Morris questionnaire (RMQ) and the short form of the McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ) were the secondary outcomes. Each was measured at baseline and every month for 3 months. The intention-to-treat (ITT) sample was analyzed to detect any inter-group differences using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance models overall and by unpaired t -tests at different time points. Results Enrolment was stopped prematurely because of time restrictions; 55 patients were randomized (verum: 28; control: 27); 49 were analyzed by ITT (verum: 26; control: 23). Inter-group differences in ODQ (F1, 47 = 0.001, p = 0.977), RMQ (F1, 47 = 0.190, p = 0.665) and SF-MPQ total score (F1, 47 = 3.183, p = 0.081) at 3 months were not statistically significant. SF-MPQ total score after 2 months (p = 0.030) revealed inter-group statistical significance, favoring IHMs against placebos. Some of the SF-MPQ sub-scales at different time points were also statistically significant: e.g., the SF-MPQ average pain score after 2 months (p = 0.002) and 3 months (p = 0.007). Rhus toxicodendron, Sulphur and Pulsatilla nigricans were the most frequently indicated medicines. Conclusion Owing to failure in detecting a statistically significant effect for the primary outcome and in recruiting a sufficient number of participants, our trial remained inconclusive. Trial registration CTRI/2019/11/021918. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 3 rd and 6 th 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 (F1, 58 = 0.000, p = 1.000, two-way repeated measures analysis of variance), QOLCE-16 (F1, 58 = 1.428, p = 0.237), PedsQL (2–4 years) (F1, 8 = 0.685, p = 0.432) and PedsQL (5–18 years) (F1, 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 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Hyperuricemia (HU) is a major health issue in India and across the globe. It increases the disease burden and hampers quality of life. This study was aimed at exploring the effects of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) against placebo in the treatment of HU. Methods This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted on 60 patients suffering from HU in the outpatient department of D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. Each patient received either IHMs or identical-looking placebos, along with advice on dietary modifications irrespective of codes. Serum uric acid (SUA) level was the primary outcome measure; the HU quality of life questionnaire (HUQLQ) and the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile version 2 (MYMOP-2) were the secondary outcomes; all measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated-measures analysis of variance after adjusting for baseline differences. Significance level was set at p ≤0.05, two-tailed. Results The intention-to-treat sample (n = 58) was analyzed. Between-group differences in SUA levels (F 1, 56 = 13.833, p <0.001), HUQLQ scores (F 1, 56 = 32.982, p <0.001) and MYMOP-2 profile scores (F 1, 56 = 23.873, p <0.001) were statistically significant, favoring IHMs against placebos, with medium to large effect sizes. Calcarea carbonica and Pulsatilla nigricans were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No serious adverse events were reported from either of the groups. Conclusion IHMs showed significantly better results than placebos in reducing SUA levels and improving quality of life in patients suffering from HU. Trial registration CTRI/2019/10/021503; UTN: U1111–1241–1431. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Tinea corporis (TC; ringworm or dermatophytosis) is a superficial skin infection caused by Microsporum , Epidermophyton and Trichophyton genera of dermatophytes. We compared the effects of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) in fifty-millesimal (LM) potencies against placebo in TC. Methods A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two parallel arms trial was conducted on 62 individuals suffering from TC at the National Institute of Homoeopathy, India. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either IHMs in LM potencies or identical-looking placebos for a period of 3 months. The primary outcome measure was the number of participants showing complete disappearance of skin lesions after 3 months. Secondary outcomes were a numeric rating scale (NRS) measuring intensity of itching and the Skindex-29 questionnaire (overall, and three sub-scales – degree of symptoms, psychological functioning, emotional status). All were assessed at baseline and every month, up to 3 months. The intention-to-treat sample was analyzed to detect inter-group differences using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance after adjusting for baseline differences. Results The primary outcome revealed no improvement in either of the groups (χ 2 = 0.012, p = 0.999). Inter-group differences in some of the secondary outcomes favored IHMs against placebo – itching NRS (mean group difference after 3 months: −0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], −1.1 to −0.4; p = 0.001); Skindex-29 overall (mean group difference after 3 months: 3.2 [95% CI, −0.6 to 7.0; p = 0.009]); Skindex-29 degree of symptoms (mean group difference after 3 months: 0.9 [95% CI, −0.2 to 1.9; p = 0.007]); and Skindex-29 psychological functioning (mean group difference after 3 months: 1.7 [95% CI, 0–3.4; p = 0.002]). Conclusion Results were negative on the primary outcome; however, secondary outcomes included some statistically significant results favoring IHMs against placebo after 3 months. Trial registration CTRI/2019/11/021999; UTN: U1111–1242–0070. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Homeopathic treatment is claimed to be beneficial for primary dysmenorrhoea (PD); still, systematic research evidences remain compromised. This study was undertaken to examine the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IH) against placebo in the treatment of PD. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the gynecology outpatient department of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal, India. Patients were randomized to receive either IH (n=64) or identical-looking placebo (n=64). Primary and secondary outcome measures were 0–10 numeric rating scales (NRS) measuring intensity of pain of dysmenorrhea and verbal multidimensional scoring system (VMSS) respectively; all measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated on intention-to-treat (ITT) sample. Groups were comparable at baseline (all p>0.05). Attrition rate was 10.9% (IH: 7, placebo: 7). Differences between groups in both pain NRS and VMSS favoured IH over placebo at all time points (all p<0.001, unpaired t-tests and two-ways repeated measures analysis of variance) with medium to large effect sizes. Natrum muriaticum and Pulsatilla nigricans (n=20 each; 15.6%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, serious adverse events and intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. Homeopathic medicines acted significantly better than placebo in the treatment of PD. Independent replication is warranted. Trial registration: CTRI/2018/10/016013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]