BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to conventional treatment in acute respiratory and ear complaints in a primary care setting.MethodsThe study was designed as an international, multi-centre, comparative cohort study of non-randomised design. Patients, presenting themselves with at least one chief complaint: acute (≤ 7 days) runny nose, sore throat, ear pain, sinus pain or cough, were recruited at 57 primary care practices in Austria (8), Germany (8), the Netherlands (7), Russia (6), Spain (6), Ukraine (4), United Kingdom (10) and the USA (8) and given either homeopathic or conventional treatment. Therapy outcome was measured by using the response rate, defined as the proportion of patients experiencing 'complete recovery' or 'major improvement' in each treatment group. The primary outcome criterion was the response rate after 14 days of therapy.ResultsData of 1,577 patients were evaluated in the full analysis set of which 857 received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment. The majority of patients in both groups reported their outcome after 14 days of treatment as complete recovery or major improvement (H: 86.9%; C: 86.0%; p = 0.0003 for non-inferiority testing). In the per-protocol set (H: 576 and C: 540 patients) similar results were obtained (H: 87.7%; C: 86.9%; p = 0.0019). Further subgroup analysis of the full analysis set showed no differences of response rates after 14 days in children (H: 88.5%; C: 84.5%) and adults (H: 85.6%; C: 86.6%). The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of the primary outcome criterion was 1.40 (0.89–2.22) in children and 0.92 (0.63–1.34) in adults. Adjustments for demographic differences at baseline did not significantly alter the OR. The response rates after 7 and 28 days also showed no significant differences between both treatment groups. However, onset of improvement within the first 7 days after treatment was significantly faster upon homeopathic treatment both in children (p = 0.0488) and adults (p = 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions occurred more frequently in adults of the conventional group than in the homeopathic group (C: 7.6%; H: 3.1%, p = 0.0032), whereas in children the occurrence of adverse drug reactions was not significantly different (H: 2.0%; C: 2.4%, p = 0.7838).ConclusionIn primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment.

An homoeopathic pathogenic trial (HPT, proving) was carried out using a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover method. The name of the medicine was also unknown to the volunteers. A number of subjects withdrew at the last minute, leading to an unbalanced randomisation. A strong period effect was observed, which makes results difficult to interpret. Most subjects were able to guess correctly which treatment was active and which placebo.

As part of a 4-phase research project, 58 homoeopathic physicians, all members of VHAN (Dutch Association of Homoeopathic Physicians) registered for 1 week the complaints and diagnoses according to ICPC-code of the first 30 patients given exclusively homoeopathic treatment during that week. A total of 1712 patients, 36% male and 64% female, was registered. Children under 10 and adults from 30–40 years particularly sought homoeopathic treatment.

In a randomized, double-blind study, the effects of individualized homœopathy in patients suffering from proctocolitis were investigated. The study was controlled against conventional therapy and placebo.Individually indicated homoœopathic medicines were prescribed in the 30c, 200c or 1,000c potencies.The researchers did not succeed in attracting sufficient numbers of participants to arrive at statistically significant conclusions. The total number of patients in the three combined groups was only 20, which was far below the target figure. The causes of this are discussed.Bowel habit and subjective parameters were assessed by a weekly health calendar. This calendar had not been previously validated. The conventional group scored best: eight out of ten patients completed the year of research and improved both with regard to their proctocolitis and their general well-being.