Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review

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.

India and its pluralistic health system - a new philosophy for Universal Health Coverage

In this article we attempt to put forth insights into using traditional medicine (TM) systems to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC). We discuss the need for reimagining India's health system and the importance of an inclusive approach for UHC. We comprehend the challenges with appropriate use of TM systems and the lessons from international experience of integrating TM systems. We highlight the pathways for better utilization of TM systems for UHC in India.

Promoting health economic evaluation studies in the AYUSH system of medicine: the need of the hour

The double burden of communicable and noncommunicable diseases is a major threat to the Indian public health system. AYUSH, an acronym for Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy, represents the Indian system of medicine recognized by the Government of India. Mainstreaming of AYUSH is one of the key strategies of the Indian government for tackling increasing disease burden through initiatives such as AYUSH wellness centers, telemedicine, and quality control measures for medications in the AYUSH system of medicine. Such investment of resources in health systems may require economic evaluations. However, such evaluations are lacking in the AYUSH system, except for a few in homeopathy and yoga. In the absence of evidence from economic evaluations, researchers and decision makers are guided mostly by clinical efficacy while formulating healthcare strategies. In view of the increasing use of AYUSH across the country, economic evaluations of the AYUSH system are the need of the hour to aid healthcare decision making.

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.

Evaluating the effect on asthma quality of life of added reflexology or homeopathy to conventional asthma management - an investigator-blinded, randomised, controlled parallel group study

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide without any known cure. Despite remarkable improvement in asthma treatment, better education and guideline implementation strategies, there is growing interest in using complementary and alternative medicine, like reflexology and homeopathy. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of homeopathy and reflexology in asthma treatment is not available.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of reflexology and homeopathy as adjunctive therapies in asthma.

METHODS

In a single centre, randomised, investigator blinded, controlled study 86 asthma patients were enrolled. They were assigned to one of three study groups (conventional treatment alone or conventional treatment with addition of either homeopathy or reflexology). All patients received their asthma treatment during the study and were followed as usual by their general practitioner. The study assignment group of individual patients were blinded to the investigators, who made the clinical evaluation of asthma control. The primary outcome was the change in the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) scores after 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes included asthma control questionnaire, EuroQol, forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and total medication score.

RESULTS

Minor improvements in the AQLQ score were observed in all three groups. However, no statistically significant changes in AQLQ scores were seen within or between groups. Likewise, secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the addition of homeopathy or reflexology to conventional treatment did not result in improved quality of life in asthma.

Homeopathy Use in the United States and Implications for Public Health: A Review

Homeopathy is used by just over 2% of the U.S. population, predominantly for respiratory, otorhinolaryngology, and musculoskeletal complaints. Individual users who see a homeopathic provider for care are more likely to perceive the therapy as helpful than those who do not; however, only 19% of users in the United States see a provider. The rest presumably rely upon over-the-counter products. Recent clinical trials highlight several areas in which homeopathy may play a role in improving public health, including infectious diseases, pain management, mental health, and cancer care. This review examines recent studies in these fields, studies assessing costs associated with homeopathic care, safety, and regulations in the United States. Data suggest the potential for public health benefit from homeopathy, especially for conditions such as upper respiratory infections and fibromyalgia.

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.

Economic impact of homeopathic practice in general medicine in France

Health authorities are constantly searching for new ways to stabilise health expenditures. To explore this issue, we compared the costs generated by different types of medical practice in French general medicine: i.e. conventional (CM-GP), homeopathic (Ho-GP), or mixed (Mx-GP).Data from a previous cross-sectional study, EPI3 La-Ser, were used. Three types of cost were analysed: (i) consultation cost (ii) prescription cost and (iii) total cost (consultation + prescription). Each was evaluated as: (i) the cost to Social Security (ii) the remaining cost (to the patient and/or supplementary health insurance); and (iii) health expenditure (combination of the two costs).With regard to Social Security, treatment by Ho-GPs was less costly (42.00 <euro> vs 65.25 <euro> for CM-GPs, 35 % less). Medical prescriptions were two-times more expensive for CM-GPs patients (48.68 <euro> vs 25.62 <euro>). For the supplementary health insurance and/or patient out-of-pocket costs, treatment by CM-GPs was less expensive due to the lower consultation costs (6.19 <euro> vs 11.20 <euro> for Ho-GPs) whereas the prescription cost was comparable between the Ho-GPs and the CM-GPs patients (15.87 <euro> vs 15.24 <euro> respectively) . The health expenditure cost was 20 % less for patients consulting Ho-GPs compared to CM-GPs (68.93 <euro> vs 86.63 <euro>, respectively). The lower cost of medical prescriptions for Ho-GPs patients compared to CM-GPs patients (41.67 <euro> vs 63.72 <euro>) was offset by the higher consultation costs (27.08 <euro> vs 22.68 <euro> respectively). Ho-GPs prescribed fewer psychotropic drugs, antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.In conclusions management of patients by homeopathic GPs may be less expensive from a global perspective and may represent an important interest to public health.

Can Additional Homeopathic Treatment Save Costs? A Retrospective Cost-Analysis Based on 44500 Insured Persons

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the health care costs for patients using additional homeopathic treatment (homeopathy group) with the costs for those receiving usual care (control group).

Methods

Cost data provided by a large German statutory health insurance company were retrospectively analysed from the societal perspective (primary outcome) and from the statutory health insurance perspective. Patients in both groups were matched using a propensity score matching procedure based on socio-demographic variables as well as costs, number of hospital stays and sick leave days in the previous 12 months. Total cumulative costs over 18 months were compared between the groups with an analysis of covariance (adjusted for baseline costs) across diagnoses and for six specific diagnoses (depression, migraine, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and headache).

Results

Data from 44,550 patients (67.3% females) were available for analysis. From the societal perspective, total costs after 18 months were higher in the homeopathy group (adj. mean: EUR 7,207.72 [95% CI 7,001.14–7,414.29]) than in the control group (EUR 5,857.56 [5,650.98–6,064.13]; p<0.0001) with the largest differences between groups for productivity loss (homeopathy EUR 3,698.00 [3,586.48–3,809.53] vs. control EUR 3,092.84 [2,981.31–3,204.37]) and outpatient care costs (homeopathy EUR 1,088.25 [1,073.90–1,102.59] vs. control EUR 867.87 [853.52–882.21]). Group differences decreased over time. For all diagnoses, costs were higher in the homeopathy group than in the control group, although this difference was not always statistically significant.

Conclusion

Compared with usual care, additional homeopathic treatment was associated with significantly higher costs. These analyses did not confirm previously observed cost savings resulting from the use of homeopathy in the health care system.

Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine

This opinion deals critically with the so-called complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapy on the basis of current data. From the authors' perspective, CAM prescriptions and most notably the extensive current endeavours to the "integration" of CAM into conventional patient care is problematic in several respects. Thus, several CAM measures are used, although no specific effects of medicines can be proved in clinical studies. It is extensively explained that the methods used in this regard are those of evidence-based medicine, which is one of the indispensable pillars of science-oriented medicine. This standard of proof of efficacy is fundamentally independent of the requirement of being able to explain efficacy of a therapy in a manner compatible with the insights of the natural sciences, which is also essential for medical progress. Numerous CAM treatments can however never conceivably satisfy this requirement; rather they are justified with pre-scientific or unscientific paradigms. The high attractiveness of CAM measures evidenced in patients and many doctors is based on a combination of positive expectations and experiences, among other things, which are at times unjustified, at times thoroughly justified, from a science-oriented view, but which are non-specific (context effects). With a view to the latter phenomenon, the authors consider the conscious use of CAM as unrevealed therapeutic placebos to be problematic. In addition, they advocate that academic medicine should again systematically endeavour to pay more attention to medical empathy and use context effects in the service of patients to the utmost. The subsequent opinion discusses the following after an introduction to medical history: the definition of CAM; the efficacy of most common CAM procedures; CAM utilisation and costs in Germany; characteristics of science-oriented medicine; awareness of placebo research; pro and contra arguments about the use of CAM, not least of all in terms of aspects related to medical ethics.