Homeopathy for eczema: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials

Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in Atopic Dermatitis in Adults: A Replication Trial with 6 Months' Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing and remitting inflammatory skin disease that can have a significant impact on quality of life. During the last four decades, a rising trend in AD has been observed in India. Homeopathic medicines are claimed to be beneficial in AD; however, convincing research evidence has been lacking. We compared the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) against placebos in the treatment of AD.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 6 months' duration (n = 60), adult patients were randomized to receive either IHMs (n = 30) or identical-looking placebos (n = 30). All participants received concomitant conventional care, which included the application of olive oil and maintaining local hygiene. The primary outcome measure was disease severity using the Patient-Oriented Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD) scale; secondary outcomes were the Atopic Dermatitis Burden Scale for Adults (ADBSA) and Dermatological Life Quality Index (DLQI) - all were measured at baseline and every month, up to 6 months. Group differences were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample.

RESULTS

After 6 months of intervention, inter-group differences became statistically significant on PO-SCORAD, the primary outcome (-18.1; 95% confidence interval, -24.0 to -12.2), favoring IHMs against placebos (F 1, 52 = 14.735; p <0.001; two-way repeated measures analysis of variance). Inter-group differences for the secondary outcomes favored homeopathy, but were overall statistically non-significant (ADBSA: F 1, 52 = 0.019; p = 0.891; DLQI: F 1, 52 = 0.692; p = 0.409).

CONCLUSION

IHMs performed significantly better than placebos in reducing the severity of AD in adults, though the medicines had no overall significant impact on AD burden or DLQI.

What are the highest yielding search strategy terms for systematic reviews in atopic dermatitis? A systematic review

The impact of search strategies on systematic reviews (SR) of atopic dermatitis (AD) is unknown. The purpose of this review was to evaluate search strategies used in SR of AD and their impact on the frequency of manuscripts identified. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for SR related to AD. Simulations were performed by running combinations of search terms in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Overall, 250 SR met inclusion criteria, of which 225 specified search strategies. SR using 5-6 terms (20.0% to 12.1%) or ≥ 7 (40.0% to 18.8%) terms decreased, whereas SR using 3-4 terms numerically increased (18.8% to 30.2%) and 1-2 terms remained similar (37.5% to 38.9%) from 1999-2009 to 2015-2019. The most commonly searched terms were "atopic dermatitis" (n = 166), followed by "eczema" (n = 156), "dermatitis atopic'" (n = 81), "atopic eczema" (n = 74), "neurodermatitis" (n = 59), "Besniers prurigo" (n = 29), "infantile eczema" (n = 27), and "childhood eczema" (n = 19). Simulations revealed that "eczema" and "atopic dermatitis" yielded the most hits. The number of search terms that maximized hits in MEDLINE and EMBASE was 5 and 4, respectively. Search strategies for AD were heterogeneous, with high proportions of search strategies providing few search hits. Future studies should use standardized and optimized search terms.

Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review

Background

Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is of critical importance in dermatology because of their key role in informing health care decisions.

Objective

To assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines.

Methods

This review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Included studies were reviews published across 6 years in the top 4 highest-impact-factor dermatology journals of 2017. Records and full texts were screened independently. Data analysis was conducted with univariate multivariable linear regression. The primary outcome was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement.

Results

A total of 166 studies were included and mean PRISMA compliance across all articles was 73%. Compliance significantly improved over time (β = .016; P = <.001). The worst reported checklist item was item 5 (reporting on protocol existence), with a compliance of 15% of articles.

Conclusion

PRISMA compliance within leading dermatology journals could be improved; however, it is steadily improving.

Efficacy of Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Adults: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Preliminary Trial

INTRODUCTION

Individualized homeopathy (IH) in atopic dermatitis (AD) remained under-researched.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed at evaluating efficacy of IH in AD.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, short-term, preliminary trial was conducted in an Indian homeopathy hospital. Patients were randomized to either IH (n = 30) or identical-looking placebo (n = 30) using computerized randomization and allocation. Outcomes were patient-oriented scoring of AD (PO-SCORAD; primary end point), Dermatological Life Quality Index (DLQI) score, and AD burden score for adults (ADBSA; secondary end points), measured monthly for 3 months. An intention-to-treat sample was analyzed after adjusting baseline differences.

RESULTS

On PO-SCORAD, improvement was higher in IH against placebo, but nonsignificant statistically (pmonth 1 = 0.433, pmonth 2 = 0.442, pmonth 3 = 0.229). Secondary outcomes were also nonsignificant - both DLQI and ADBSA (p > 0.05). Four adverse events (diarrhea, injury, common cold) were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a small, but nonsignificant direction of effect towards homeopathy, which renders the trial inconclusive. A properly powered robust trial is indicated.

Reinterpreting homoeopathy in the light of placebo effects to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care: A systematic review

Homoeopathy is widespread, and users claim to benefit from it. However, clear evidence of its efficacy over placebo is not available to date. As a consequence, a social separation between homoeopathy users and mainstream medicine exists, exposing these patients to many risks. Our primary objective is to assess homoeopathy efficacy by systematically reviewing existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to systematically review trials on open-label placebo (OLP) treatments. A secondary objective is to understand if homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homoeopathy efficacy, and 61 studies were included. Same databases plus Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) were also systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on OLP treatments, and 10 studies were included. Databases were searched up to 24 February 2018. Two authors independently screened all retrieved articles and selected studies eligible for inclusion. The quality of reviews of included studies was evaluated with a dedicated NIH tool in the first review, whereas the risk of bias of trials of included studies was assessed with the specific Cochrane tool in the second review. Qualitative syntheses show that homoeopathy efficacy can be considered comparable to placebo, and that OLP treatments may be effective in some health conditions. Placebo effects like placebo itself, treatment context, physician-patient relationship, and other nonspecific factors can define the idea of placebo treatments, which may be effective in some conditions. If homoeopathy efficacy is comparable to placebo, and if placebo treatments can be effective in some conditions, then homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. Reinterpreting homoeopathy as a placebo treatment would define limits and possibilities of this practice. This perspective shift suggests a strategy to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care and to reconcile them with mainstream medicine in a sustainable way.

Dismissing the fallacies of childhood eczema management: case scenarios and an overview of best practices

BACKGROUND

Eczema or atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common relapsing childhood dermatologic illness. Treatment of AD is primarily topical with emollients and corticosteroid/calcineurin inhibitor, which is efficacious for the majority of patients. However, AD is often complicated and difficult to manage in many Asian cities. Effective therapy is impeded by fallacies in the following aspects: (1) mistrust and unrealistic expectations about Western medicine, (2) skin care and allergy treatment, (3) ambiguity about optimal bathing and moisturizing, (4) hesitation and phobias about the usage of adequate topical corticosteroid and immunomodulatory therapies, (5) food and aeroallergen avoidance and dietary supplementation, and (6) complementary and alternative therapies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Eleven anonymized case scenarios are described to illustrate issues associated with these fallacies. A literature review is performed and possible solutions to handle or dismiss these fallacies are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The first step in patient care is to accurately assess the patient and the family to evaluate possible concerns, anxiety, and phobias that could impede therapeutic efficacy. Education about the disease should be individualized. Conflicting recommendations on the usage of topical steroid have a detrimental effect on management outcomes, which must be avoided.

Investigational drugs for atopic dermatitis

INTRODUCTION

Many novel medications and herbal medicines have claimed efficacy on atopic dermatitis (AD).

AREAS COVERED

This review covers evidence on efficacy of topical and oral forms of novel and investigational drugs. Topical agents include emollients, phosphodiesterase E4 (PDE4) inhibitors, and topical herbs. There is little evidence that ceramides or natural moisturizing factors provide relief in AD. PDE4 inhibitors have shown promise as an effective topical treatment for mild-to-moderate AD with minimal adverse events, and dupilumab as an effective subcutaneous agent for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in adult patients with little adverse effects. However, only preliminary data are available for dupilumab in children with AD. The long-term effects of dupilumab are also not known. Potential new systemic treatments include a number of herbal concoctions.

EXPERT OPINION

Randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated topical PDE4 inhibitors are effective and safe in the treatment of both children and adults with AD but further evaluations are needed. RCTs have also shown that subcutaneous dupilumab is an effective and safe agent for the treatment of AD in adults. Long-term effects of these topical and systemic investigational drugs are currently unavailable. Regarding herbal medications, scientific methods are often flawed and objective evidence is lacking.

Dietary Supplements in Children

High-quality systematic reviews of use of herbal or homeopathic remedies in children often suffer from design flaws, such as not following PRISMA guidelines, inconsistent outcome measurements, and paucity of high-quality studies. Herbal remedies have modest demonstrated benefits with insufficient evidence to recommend any particular supplement. Homeopathic remedies have no role in treatment of pediatric conditions, and have been associated with great harm in infants given homeopathic teething products. Two types of herbal supplements are associated with high risk in adolescents, energy drinks and adulterated weight-loss products. Parents should be counseled about risks of these products.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background

Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

Objectives

To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Review methods

Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.

Results

Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.

Limitations

The large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.

Conclusions

Although the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

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.

Complementary and alternative medicines and childhood eczema: a US population-based study

The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in US children with eczema is unknown. Furthermore, it is unknown whether CAM use in the United States is associated with higher eczema prevalence. We sought to determine the eczema prevalence in association with CAM usage. We analyzed data from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey that included a nationally representative sample of 9417 children ages 0 to 17 years. Overall, 46.9% (95% confidence interval, 45.6%-48.2%) of children in the United States used 1 or more CAM, of which 0.99% (0.28%-1.71%) used CAM specifically to treat their eczema, including herbal therapy (0.46%), vitamins (0.33%), Ayurveda (0.28%), naturopathy (0.24%), homeopathy (0.20%), and traditional healing (0.12%). Several CAMs used for other purposes were associated with increased eczema prevalence, including herbal therapy (survey logistic regression; adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 2.07 [1.40-3.06]), vitamins (1.45 [1.21-1.74]), homeopathic therapy (2.94 [1.43-6.00]), movement techniques (3.66 [1.62-8.30]), and diet (2.24 [1.10-4.58]), particularly vegan diet (2.53 [1.17-5.51]). In conclusion, multiple CAMs are commonly used for the treatment of eczema in US children. However, some CAMs may actually be harmful to the skin and be associated with higher eczema prevalence in the United States.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2012 and 2013. Part 2. Treatment and prevention

This review provides a summary of key findings from 22 systematic reviews on atopic eczema (AE) published over the 2-year period from January 2012 to 31 December 2013, focusing on prevention and treatment of AE. For an update of systematic reviews on the epidemiology, mechanisms of disease and methodological issues, see Part 1 of this update. Based on current systematic review evidence, the most promising intervention for the prevention of AE is the use of probiotics (and possibly prebiotics) during the late stages of pregnancy and early life. Exposure to household pets, especially dogs, may also be protective, but exclusive breastfeeding for up to 7 months does not confer benefit. The role of vitamin D in preventing AE is currently unclear. Very few of the systematic reviews provided additional evidence for the use of specific treatments for AE. Further research is required to establish the role of desensitization, Chinese herbal medicines, homeopathy and specialist clothing. Nevertheless, there is now clear evidence that evening primrose oil and borage oil are not effective for the treatment of AE. There have been no randomized controlled trials on the use of H1 anti-histamines as monotherapy for the treatment of AE.

Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding the adverse effects (AEs) of homeopathy.

METHOD

Five electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant case reports and case series.

RESULTS

In total, 38 primary reports met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 30 pertained to direct AEs of homeopathic remedies; and eight were related to AEs caused by the substitution of conventional medicine with homeopathy. The total number of patients who experienced AEs of homeopathy amounted to 1159. Overall, AEs ranged from mild-to-severe and included four fatalities. The most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications. Rhus toxidendron was the most frequently implicated homeopathic remedy.

CONCLUSION

Homeopathy has the potential to harm patients and consumers in both direct and indirect ways. Clinicians should be aware of its risks and advise their patients accordingly.