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.
Background Pre-diabetes (PD) contributes importantly to the disease burden worldwide and is a precursor to stroke, cardiovascular diseases, as well as type-2 diabetes mellitus.
Objective In this project, the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) was explored against placebos in the treatment of PD.
Methods A 6-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the outpatient departments of a homeopathic medical college and hospital in India. Sixty participants with PD were randomized to receive either IHMs (n = 30) or identical-looking placebos (n = 30). Concomitant care measures were advised to both groups of participants in terms of dietary advice, yoga, meditation and exercise. The primary outcome measures were fasting blood sugar (FBS) and the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); the secondary outcome was the Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (DSC-R) score. All the outcomes were measured at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Inter-group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance models after adjusting baseline differences using analysis of co-variance on the intention-to-treat data.
Results Between-group differences in FBS were statistically significant, favored IHMs against placebos (F
1,58 = 7.798, p = 0.007) but not for OGTT (F
1,58 = 1.691, p = 0.199). The secondary outcome, DSC-R total score, favoring IHMs significantly compared with placebos (F
1,58 = 15.752, p < 0.001). Calcarea Carbonicum, Thuja occidentalis and Sulphur were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harm or serious adverse events were recorded from either of the participant groups.
Conclusion IHMs produced significantly better results than placebos in FBS and in DSC-R scores but not in OGTT. Independent replications with larger sample sizes are warranted to substantiate the findings.
Trial registration CTRI/2019/10/021711
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.