The results of this observational study suggest that homeopathic treatment for hot flushes in menopausal women is effective. Further studies including randomized controlled trials should be conducted.

BackgroundHomeopathic medicines have a place among the non-hormonal therapies for the treatment of hot flashes during the menopause.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the non-hormonal treatment BRN-01 in reducing hot flashes in menopausal women.Study DesignThis was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study carried out between June 2010 and July 2011.SettingThe study was conducted in 35 active centers in France (gynecologists in private practice).PatientsOne hundred and eight menopausal women, ≥50 years of age, were enrolled in the study. The eligibility criteria included menopause for <24 months and ≥5 hot flashes per day with a significant negative effect on the women’s professional and/or personal life.InterventionTreatment was either BRN-01 tablets, a registered homeopathic medicine containing Actaea racemosa (4 centesimal dilutions [4CH]), Arnica montana (4CH), Glonoinum (4CH), Lachesis mutus (5CH), and Sanguinaria canadensis (4CH), or identical placebo tablets, prepared by Laboratoires Boiron according to European Pharmacopoeia standards. Oral treatment (2 to 4 tablets per day) was started on day 3 after study enrollment and was continued for 12 weeks.Main Outcome MeasureThe main outcome measure was the hot flash score (HFS) compared before, during, and after treatment. Secondary outcome criteria were the quality of life (QoL) [measured using the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS)], severity of symptoms (measured using the Menopause Rating Scale), evolution of the mean dosage, and compliance. All adverse events (AEs) were recorded.ResultsOne hundred and one women were included in the final analysis (intent-to-treat population: BRN-01, n = 50; placebo, n = 51). The global HFS over the 12 weeks, assessed as the area under the curve (AUC) adjusted for baseline values, was significantly lower in the BRN-01 group than in the placebo group (mean ± SD 88.2 ± 6.5 versus 107.2 ± 6.4; p = 0.0411). BRN-01 was well tolerated; the frequency of AEs was similar in the two treatment groups, and no serious AEs were attributable to BRN-01.ConclusionBRN-01 seemed to have a significant effect on the HFS, compared with placebo. According to the results of this clinical trial, BRN-01 may be considered a new therapeutic option with a safe profile for hot flashes in menopausal women who do not want or are not able to take hormone replacement therapy or other recognized treatments for this indication.Trial registration number (EudraCT): 2009-016959–21.

Therapeutics to treat or prevent anxiety are numerous but many people choose to try non-conventional medicine such as homeopathy. This study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of Gelsemium 5CH and 15CH on provoked anxiety in healthy volunteers, in comparison with placebo. This was a double-blind, single-centre, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Eligible healthy men or women aged from 18 to 40 years without a history of psychiatric disorders were randomly allocated to receive Gelsemium 5 or 15CH or placebo. Anxiety was proved by performance of the Stroop colour word test (SCWT). The primary end-point was anxiety assessed by the State measure of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S) as the absolute value and difference with baseline, according to the treatment received. We included 180 healthy volunteers. The distribution into each treatment group was homogenous. There was no statistical difference between groups for the values of STAI-S at baseline, just before the SCWT and the difference between these times (1.8 [0.20 to 3.4], 1.0 [-0.6 to 2.6] and 1.4 [-0.3 to 3.0] for Gelsemium 15CH, 5CH and placebo respectively). Likewise, no statistical difference was observed between groups in anxiety as measured by a Visual Analogue Scale and the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate significantly increased (P < 0.001) but no interaction between time prior to provoked anxiety and treatment was shown (P = 0.59 and P = 0.46, respectively). Gelsemium 5CH and 15CH do not prevent anticipatory anxiety in the conditions used in this study.

Anxiety and/or SDS improved significantly in patients included on this study. PC could be an alternative to the use of psychotropic drugs for first intention treatment of anxiety and SDS. Further studies are needed to confirm those results.

No abstract