Controlled double-blind trial with Baryta carbonica 15 CH versus placebo in a group of hypertensive subjects confined to bed in two old people's homes

Efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines in intervening the progression of pre-hypertension to hypertension: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

CONTEXT

Pre-hypertension remains a significant public health challenge and appropriate intervention is required to stop its progression to hypertension and/or cardiovascular diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To study the effects of individualized homeopathic medicines (IH) against placebo in intervening with the progression of pre-hypertension to hypertension.

DESIGN

Double-blind, randomized, two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient departments of D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.

PATIENTS

Ninety-two patients suffering from pre-hypertension; randomized to receive either IH (n = 46) or identical-looking placebo (n = 46).

INTERVENTIONS

IH or placebo in the mutual context of lifestyle modification (LSM) advices including dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) and brisk exercises.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary - systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP); secondary - Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile version 2.0 (MYMOP-2) scores; all measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months.

RESULTS

After 3 months of intervention, the number of patients having progression from pre-hypertension to hypertension between groups were similar without any significant differences in between (all P>0.05). Reduction in BP and MYMOP-2 scores were non-significantly higher (all P>0.05) in the IH group than placebo with small effect sizes. Lycopodium clavatum, Thuja occidentalis and Natrum muriaticum were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms or serious adverse events were reported from either group. Thus, there was a small, but non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy, which ultimately rendered the trial as inconclusive. [Trial registration: CTRI/2018/10/016,026; UTN: U1111-1221-8251].

Priorities and methods for developing the evidence profile of homeopathy Recommendations of the ECH General Assembly and XVIII Symposium of GIRI

To achieve scientific acceptance, homeopathy must investigate several questions: 1. The activity of very highly diluted preparations. The consensus of the meeting was that there is clear evidence of this. 2. The content of very highly diluted homeopathic preparations. More research is needed but evidence exists that a specific signal is present in homeopathic preparations. 3. A theoretical framework in which the effects of homeopathic diluted preparations can be explained. The 'Body Information Theory' is such a theory. 4. The clinical effectiveness of homeopathy. Because they avoid the placebo effect, animal studies are a priority. For human trials using Quality of Life questionnaires, studies on the activity, content and theoretical basis of homeopathic preparations were reviewed approximately 70% of cases; more in children showed improvement. Homeopathy reduced costs and allowed a better improvement in work-days lost compared with conventional practice. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) implicitly test the placebo hypothesis; RCTs have been performed and meta-analyses conclude that there is clear evidence of efficacy which cannot be attributed to placebo effect. Priorities depend on the audience. More research is needed especially regarding the content of homeopathic preparations and the transmission of information. Theoretical issues are also important to avoid incorrect design of research protocols. More effort should be dedicated to veterinary research. Clinical effects analysis in humans remains important. Many other questions should be prioritised, such as the potential of homeopathy to avoid invasive procedures in children and the long-term effects of homeopathy in preventing chronic complications.

The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature

BACKGROUND

The claims made for the clinical effects of homeopathy are controversial. The results of several meta-analyses of clinical trials are positive, but they fail in general to highlight specific medical conditions that respond well to homeopathy.

AIMS

This review examines the cumulative research from randomised and/or double-blind clinical trials (RCTs) in homeopathy for individual medical conditions reported since 1975, and asks the question: What is the weight of the original evidence from published RCTs that homeopathy has an effect that is statistically significantly different from that in a comparative group?

METHOD

Analysis of the 93 substantive RCTs that compare homeopathy either with placebo or another treatment.

RESULTS

50 papers report a significant benefit of homeopathy in at least one clinical outcome measure, 41 that fail to discern any inter-group differences, and two that describe an inferior response with homeopathy. Considering the relative number of research articles on the 35 different medical conditions in which such research has been carried out, the weight of evidence currently favours a positive treatment effect in eight: childhood diarrhoea, fibrositis, hayfever, influenza, pain (miscellaneous), side-effects of radio- or chemotherapy, sprains and upper respiratory tract infection. Based on published research to date, it seems unlikely that homeopathy is efficacious for headache, stroke or warts. Insufficient research prevents conclusions from being drawn about any other medical conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The available research evidence emphasises the need for much more and better-directed research in homeopathy. A fresh agenda of enquiry should consider beyond (but include) the placebo-controlled trial. Each study should adopt research methods and outcome measurements linked to a question addressing the clinical significance of homeopathy's effects.

Can biological activity be maintained at ultra-high dilution? An overview of homeopathy, evidence, and Bayesian philosophy

Forty percent of general practitioners in the Netherlands practice homeopathy. With over 100 homeopathic medical schools, homeopathy is practiced in India along with conventional Western medicine in government clinics. In Britain, 42% of general practitioners refer patients to homeopaths. Two recent meta-analyses of homeopathy both indicate that there is enough evidence to show that homeopathy has added effects over placebo. Against this evidence is a backdrop of considerable scientific scepticism. Homeopathic remedies are diluted substances--some are so diluted that statistically there are no molecules present to explain their proposed biological effects (ultra-high dilutions or UHDs). Without knowledge of the evidence, most scientists would reject UHD effects because of their intrinsic implausibility in the light of our current scientific understanding. The objective of this article is to critically review the major pieces of evidence on UHD effects and suggest how the scientific community should respond to its challenge. Such evidence has been conducted on a diverse range of assays--immunologic, physiological, behavioral, biochemical, and clinical in the form of trials of homeopathic remedies. Evidence of UHD effects has attracted the attention of physicists who have speculated on their physical mechanisms. Included is a critique of several experiments that form the Benveniste affair which was sparked by a publication in Nature that advocated the existence of UHD effects of anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) on human basophils, and is the paradigm example of how a controversial phenomenon can split the scientific community. It is argued that if the phenomenon was uncontroversial, the evidence suffices to show that UHD effects exist. However, given that the observations contradict well-established theory, normal science has to be abandoned and scientists need to decide for themselves what the likelihood of UHD effects are. Bayesian analysis describes how scientists ought rationally to change their prior beliefs in the light of evidence. Theories by Kuhn and Lakatos indicate that whether UHD effects are proved or not depends on the beliefs and behaviors of scientists in their communities. This article argues that there is as yet insufficient evidence to drive rational scientists to a consensus over UHD effects, even if they possessed knowledge of all the evidence. The difficulty in publishing high-quality UHD research in conventional journals prevents a fair assessment of UHD effects. Given that the existence of UHD effects would revolutionize science and medicine, and given the considerable empirical evidence of them, the philosophies of science tell us that possible UHD effects warrant serious investigation by conventional scientists and serious attention by scientific journals.

Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo.

METHODS

We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes.

FINDINGS

The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05).

INTERPRETATION

The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.