[Naturopathic therapy for acute otitis media. An alternative to the primary use of antibiotics]

Prescriptions of homeopathic remedies at the expense of the German statutory health insurance from 1985 to 2021: scientific, legal and pharmacoeconomic analysis

The prescription of homeopathic remedies at the expense of the statutory health insurance (SHI) system in Germany has been criticized for years due to a lack of evidence. Now, on the planned abolition of the reimbursement of homeopathic medicines in Germany, the debate on this topic has been reignited. The aim of this paper is to show the costs and their development over time incurred by homeopathic remedies in the healthcare system from 1985 to 2021. For this purpose, 15 selected homeopathic medicines were chosen from the drug prescription report (Arzneiverordnungsreport) and analyzed with regard to their development of DDD (Defined Daily Dose) using data from the Wissenschaftliches Institut der Ortskrankenkassen (WidO, Scientific Institute of the General Local Health Insurance Funds) and compared with their respective rational pharmacological alternatives. The price comparison was based on the DDD costs and the pharmacy retail price of the smallest packaging in each case. The clinical study situation for the preparations was also analyzed. For this purpose, the clinical studies provided by the manufacturer and those on PubMed were divided into evidence levels and analyzed. In addition, the presentation of homeopathic remedies on company websites, in online pharmacies, in specialist information and package leaflets was analyzed with regard to side effects, interactions, indication, and information on the alleged effect/proof of efficacy. In many media, information on homeopathic medicines remained incomplete, and non-compliance with the Therapeutic Product Advertising Act (Heilmittelwerbegesetz) was noted. Naming of the products if often very suggestive, too. Manufacturers' claims of efficacy go far beyond what can be considered proven in terms of evidence-based medicine and the quality of most clinical studies is poor. Homeopathic remedies are on average significantly more expensive than their rational pharmacological alternatives. Furthermore, DDD costs have continued to rise over the years analyzed. In aggregate, from a pharmacoeconomic, legal, and scientific perspective, abolition of reimbursement of homeopathic medicines in Germany at the expense of the SHI system is well justified.

Complementary/Integrative Medicine for Pediatric Otitis Media

Complementary/integrative medicine can be used in treating otitis media, especially during the watchful waiting phase. Elimination of risk factors can be important. Products such as echinacea, xylitol, and probiotics may help in prevention. Herbal eardrop formulations can relieve symptoms in some patients. Other modalities such as homeopathy can lead to faster relief of symptoms in combination with conventional therapy. Chinese, Japanese, and other forms of traditional medicine have varying formulations with unclear safety, but initial results are promising. Most studies are limited by methodological failures and small sample sizes, emphasizing the need for continued research in this area.

Antibiotic Use in Children with Acute Respiratory or Ear Infections: Prospective Observational Comparison of Anthroposophic and Conventional Treatment under Routine Primary Care Conditions

Children with acute respiratory or ear infections (RTI/OM) are often unnecessarily prescribed antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem and antibiotic prescription for RTI/OM should be reduced. Anthroposophic treatment of RTI/OM includes anthroposophic medications, nonmedication therapy and if necessary also antibiotics. This secondary analysis from an observational study comprised 529 children <18 years from Europe (AT, DE, NL, and UK) or USA, whose caregivers had chosen to consult physicians offering anthroposophic (A-) or conventional (C-) treatment for RTI/OM. During the 28-day follow-up antibiotics were prescribed to 5.5% of A-patients and 25.6% of C-patients (P < 0.001); unadjusted odds ratio for nonprescription in A- versus C-patients 6.58 (95%-CI 3.45–12.56); after adjustment for demographics and morbidity 6.33 (3.17–12.64). Antibiotic prescription rates in recent observational studies with similar patients in similar settings, ranged from 31.0% to 84.1%. Compared to C-patients, A-patients also had much lower use of analgesics, somewhat quicker symptom resolution, and higher caregiver satisfaction. Adverse drug reactions were infrequent (2.3% in both groups) and not serious. Limitation was that results apply to children of caregivers who consult A-physicians. One cannot infer to what extent antibiotics might be avoided in children who usually receive C-treatment, if they were offered A-treatment.

WITHDRAWN: Decongestants and antihistamines for acute otitis media in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common and important source of morbidity in children, although the majority of cases resolve spontaneously. While frequently recommended, decongestant and antihistamine therapy is of unclear benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of decongestant and antihistamine therapy in children with AOM on outcomes of AOM resolution, symptom resolution, medication side effects, and complications of AOM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2); MEDLINE (January 2004 to May 2007); and EMBASE (July 2003 to May 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating decongestant or antihistamine treatment for children with AOM were included. Patient-oriented outcomes were considered most relevant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion, performed validity assessments and completed data extraction. Dichotomous data were pooled to generate relative risks; homogeneity was assessed using approximate chi-square tests.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were included following this updated search. Fifteen trials involving 2695 people were included. Only the combined decongestant-antihistamine group demonstrated statistically lower rates of persistent AOM at the two week period (fixed relative risk (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.96; number needed to treat (NNT) 10). No benefit was found for early cure rates, symptom resolution, prevention of surgery or other complications. There was a five to eight -fold increased risk of side effects for those receiving an intervention, which reached statistical significance for all decongestant groupings. Validity sub analyses demonstrated that lower quality studies found benefit, while analysis of those studies with higher validity scores found no benefit of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given lack of benefit and increased risk of side effects, these data do not support the use of decongestant treatment in children with AOM. There was a small statistical benefit from combination medication use but the clinical significance is minimal and study design may be biasing the results. Thus, the routine use of antihistamines for treating AOM in children cannot be recommended.

Decongestants and antihistamines for acute otitis media in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common and important source of morbidity in children, although the majority of cases resolve spontaneously. While frequently recommended, decongestant and antihistamine therapy is of unclear benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of decongestant and antihistamine therapy in children with AOM on outcomes of AOM resolution, symptom resolution, medication side effects, and complications of AOM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2); MEDLINE (January 2004 to May 2007); and EMBASE (July 2003 to May 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating decongestant or antihistamine treatment for children with AOM were included. Patient-oriented outcomes were considered most relevant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion, performed validity assessments and completed data extraction. Dichotomous data were pooled to generate relative risks; homogeneity was assessed using approximate chi-square tests.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were included following this updated search. Fifteen trials involving 2695 people were included. Only the combined decongestant-antihistamine group demonstrated statistically lower rates of persistent AOM at the two week period (fixed relative risk (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.96; number needed to treat (NNT) 10). No benefit was found for early cure rates, symptom resolution, prevention of surgery or other complications. There was a five to eight -fold increased risk of side effects for those receiving an intervention, which reached statistical significance for all decongestant groupings. Validity sub analyses demonstrated that lower quality studies found benefit, while analysis of those studies with higher validity scores found no benefit of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given lack of benefit and increased risk of side effects, these data do not support the use of decongestant treatment in children with AOM. There was a small statistical benefit from combination medication use but the clinical significance is minimal and study design may be biasing the results. Thus, the routine use of antihistamines for treating AOM in children cannot be recommended.

[Homeopathy in acute rhinosinusitis: a double-blind, placebo controlled study shows the efficiency and tolerability of a homeopathic combination remedy]

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and tolerability of a homeopathic combination remedy for the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis was investigated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 144 patients with acute rhinosinusitis were treated in a randomized, double-blind study either with a homeopathic remedy (n=72) or placebo (n=72). At the control examinations after 7, 14 and 21 days, five sinusitis-typical symptoms were measured with scores from 0 (absent) to 4 (very strong). The change of sum score of the sinusitis-typical symptoms (max. 20 points) during the treatment served as the primary efficacy criterion.

RESULTS

In the homeopathic treatment group, the average sum score dropped from initially 12.1+/-1.6 to 5.9+/-2.0 points after 7 days. In the placebo group it decreased from 11.7+/-1.6 to 11.0+/-2.9 points (p<0.0001). The homeopathic treatment resulted in freedom from complaints in 90.3% of the patients and improvement in a further 8.3%, whereas in the placebo group, the complaints remained unchanged or became worse in 88.9% of the patients. Only one adverse event occurred in one patient from the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

The homeopathic product allows an effective and tolerable treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.