Homeopathic Individualized Q-Potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-Blind, Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

Faculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí, Homeopathy Graduation Programme, Department of Psychobiology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, R. Napoleão de Barros, 925 São Paulo, SP 04024-002, Brazil.
Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.18). 08/2009; 2011(1741-427X):520182. DOI: 10.1093/ecam/nep114
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Homeopathy is a complementary and integrative medicine used in depression, The aim of this study is to investigate the non-inferiority and tolerability of individualized homeopathic medicines [Quinquagintamillesmial (Q-potencies)] in acute depression, using fluoxetine as active control. Ninety-one outpatients with moderate to severe depression were assigned to receive an individualized homeopathic medicine or fluoxetine 20 mg day(-1) (up to 40 mg day(-1)) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind double-dummy 8-week, single-center trial. Primary efficacy measure was the analysis of the mean change in the Montgomery & Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) depression scores, using a non-inferiority test with margin of 1.45. Secondary efficacy outcomes were response and remission rates. Tolerability was assessed with the side effect rating scale of the Scandinavian Society of Psychopharmacology. Mean MADRS scores differences were not significant at the 4th (P = .654) and 8th weeks (P = .965) of treatment. Non-inferiority of homeopathy was indicated because the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) for mean difference in MADRS change was less than the non-inferiority margin: mean differences (homeopathy-fluoxetine) were -3.04 (95% CI -6.95, 0.86) and -2.4 (95% CI -6.05, 0.77) at 4th and 8th week, respectively. There were no significant differences between the percentages of response or remission rates in both groups. Tolerability: there were no significant differences between the side effects rates, although a higher percentage of patients treated with fluoxetine reported troublesome side effects and there was a trend toward greater treatment interruption for adverse effects in the fluoxetine group. This study illustrates the feasibility of randomized controlled double-blind trials of homeopathy in depression and indicates the non-inferiority of individualized homeopathic Q-potencies as compared to fluoxetine in acute treatment of outpatients with moderate to severe depression.


Available from: Helena Maria Calil, Jun 03, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The homeopathic product Homeopatila 100 ® in the diet of Nile tilapia reduces stress during production and improves the well-being of fish. The objective of this study was to develop nuggets of tilapia fed with Homeopatila 100 ® and to assess their quality. Physical, chemical, microbiological and sensory analyses were performed on three formulations with 25, 50 and 75% mechanically separated meat (MSM) for each of the treatments. The nuggets with 75% MSM revealed a higher pH (5.89 ± 0.02), the tissue was softer (1.29 N ± 0.04), and they had a higher lipid value (15.96% ± 0.05). With 50 and 75%, the color (L *) was darker (60.76% ± 0.91 and 60.03% ± 0.78), and there were lower protein amounts (15.54% ± 0.31 and 13.55% ± 0.35). Nuggets had an acceptable value of lipid oxidation (0.672 ± 0.007 mg MDA/kg). The microbiological analyses demonstrated that the product met the requirements of legislation. Nuggets with 25 and 50% MSM were deemed acceptable. There was no difference (p > 0.05) between the control treatment group and the Homeopatila 100 ® group for the analysis undertaken. The results indicated that the use of Homeopatila 100 ® in the diet of the Nile tilapia did not change the physical, chemical, microbiological and sensorial quality characteristics of the nuggets, ensuring consumer acceptability.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The most commonly recommended treatments for depression are psychological/psychotherapeutic treatments, and antidepressant drugs. However, 38 percent of patients with depression do not use these recommended treatments. Some patients seek homeopathic treatment for depression, but insufficient evidence exists to conclude as to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of treatment by homeopaths for patients with depression. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the acceptability and comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of the offer of adjunctive treatment provided by homeopaths for patients with self-reported depression. Method This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is embedded within the population based South Yorkshire Cohort (SYC) of whom nine percent self-report long-term depression. The SYC is designed to facilitate ‘cohort multiple’ randomised controlled trials (cmRCT). A self-completed questionnaire will be used to both screen and collect baseline data from potential trial participants. The primary outcome is PHQ-9. One-hundred-and-sixty-two participants will be randomly selected to the intervention group (Offer of treatment by a homeopath). The results of the Offer and the No Offer groups will be compared at 6 and 12 months using both an intention to treat (ITT) and complier average causal effect (CACE) analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis will involve calculation of quality adjusted life year (QALY). In order to help interpret the quantitative findings a selection of up to 30 patients in the offer group will be invited to participate in qualitative interviews after the first consultation and after a minimum of 6 months. Interviews will be assessed by two researchers and results will be analysed using thematic analysis. Triangulation will be used to combine results from qualitative and quantitative methodologies at the interpretation stage, to see if results agree, offer complementary information on the same issue or contradict each other.
    Homeopathy: the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy 04/2014; 103(2):147–152. DOI:10.1016/j.homp.2014.01.004 · 0.75 Impact Factor
  • Homeopathy 01/2014; 103(1):74. DOI:10.1016/j.homp.2013.10.028 · 0.75 Impact Factor