Individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma: a randomised placebo controlled trial

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK.
Thorax (Impact Factor: 8.56). 05/2003; 58(4):317-21. DOI: 10.1136/thorax.58.4.317
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Homeopathy is frequently used to treat asthma in children. In the common classical form of homeopathy, prescriptions are individualised for each patient. There has been no rigorous investigation into this form of treatment for asthma.
In a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial the effects of individualised homeopathic remedies were compared with placebo medication in 96 children with mild to moderate asthma as an adjunct to conventional treatment. The main outcome measure was the active quality of living subscale of the Childhood Asthma Questionnaire administered at baseline and follow up at 12 months. Other outcome measures included other subscales of the same questionnaire, peak flow rates, use of medication, symptom scores, days off school, asthma events, global assessment of change, and adverse reactions.
There were no clinically relevant or statistically significant changes in the active quality of life score. Other subscales, notably those measuring severity, indicated relative improvements but the sizes of the effects were small. There were no differences between the groups for other measures.
This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

Download full-text


Available from: Edzard Ernst, Jul 08, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the recent scientific research progress on homeopathy. Homeopathy was evaluated in terms of its clinical research; in vitro research, and physical foundations. The Medline database was the main reference source for the present research, concerning data of approximately the last 10 years. Secondary references (not available in this database) were obtained by means of direct requests to authors listed in the primary references. Clinical studies and in vitro research indicate the inefficacy of homeopathy. Some few studies with positive results are questionable because of problems with the quality and lack of appropriate experimental controls in these studies. The most recent meta-analyses on the topic yielded negative results. One of the few previous meta-analyses with positive results had serious publication bias problems, and its results were later substantially reconsidered by the main authors. The sparse in vitro homeopathic research with positive results has not been replicated by independent researchers, had serious methodological flaws, or when replicated, did not confirm the initial positive results. A plausible mechanism for homeopathic action is still nonexistent, and its formulation, by now, seems highly unlikely. As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.
    Revista do Hospital das Clínicas 12/2002; 58(6):324-31. DOI:10.1590/S0041-87812003000600007
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Homoeopathy is a controversial form of medicine that is governed by the premise that highly diluted substances that can a defined set of symptoms in a healthy person can cure a similar set of symptoms in a non-healthy person. The use of highly diluted homoeopathic substances that may no longer be expected to contain any trace of the original substance is contrary to accepted pharmacological theory. In addition to serial dilution, homoeopathic “potentisation” of substances also includes violent agitation of the substance at each dilution step, a process known as “succussion”. The role of this process is not understood. The fact that the mechanism of action of homoeopathic substances is unknown adds to the controversial nature of this therapy.A review of the literature demonstrated that a more rigorous approach to the research of homoeopathy was needed in order to investigate whether homoeopathy could be investigated within a scientifically appropriate context. It was initially proposed that, through the successful replication of an existing trial, a series of clinical trials based on this replication could be conducted to test fundamental questions of homoeopathy. For pragmatic reasons, this initial approach was abandoned. A novel protocol that was subsequently designed to scientifically evaluate the effects of homoeopathy, in particular, the homoeopathic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and hip, was subsequently developed.A description of homoeopathy, its development, its placement within the scientific paradigm and its role in the treatment of various clinical conditions is reviewed in Chapter 1. From this literature review, hypotheses were generated to test the effect of the homoeopathic treatment of osteoarthritis. Chapter 2 describes the selection process and proposed replication of a prior clinical trial with a successful outcome upon which to base a further series of clinical trials to test fundamental questions in homoeopathy. The selected study was a randomised, double-blind clinical trial designed to compare the effects of a complex homoeopathic preparation with the effects of paracetamol in the treatment of osteoarthritic knee pain. The study was prematurely terminated when another study presented evidence that the analgesic effect of paracetamol was no better than placebo. The uncertainty that paracetamol was no better than placebo raised doubts as to the validity of any outcome had the trial proceeded. The proposal to develop a series of clinical trials replicating the protocol of this study was postponed as a consequence.Chapter 3 describes the subsequent formation of a ‘think tank’ consisting of epidemiologists, biostatisticians, clinical researchers in complementary medicine and homoeopaths and the subsequent development of a rigorous research protocol for the investigation of homoeopathy within the scientific paradigm. This homoeopathic research model and is described in detail.Chapter 4 describes a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with five arms designed to evaluate both the research model and the homoeopathic treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee.Chapter 5 details the results of this clinical trial. No significant difference was demonstrated between individualised homoeopathic treatment, generic complex homoeopathic treatments or placebo. Furthermore, no positive effect on treatments was demonstrated by the inclusion of a full homoeopathic consultation.Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the clinical trial. Possible reasons for the discrepancy between the hypothesised outcomes and the results of the clinical trial are explored and directions for future research are suggested.
  • Source