Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is common and often difficult to treat – unless, of course, you consult a homeopath. Here is just one of virtually thousands of quotes from homeopaths available on the Internet: Homeopathic medicine can reduce Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) symptoms by lowering food sensitivities and allergies. Homeopathy treats the patient as a whole and does not simply focus on the disease. Careful attention is given to the minute details about the presenting complaints, including the severity of diarrhea, constipation, pain, cramps, mucus in the stools, nausea, heartburn, emotional triggers and conventional laboratory findings. In addition, the patient’s eating habits, food preferences, thermal attributes and sleep patterns are noted. The patient’s family history and diseases, along with the patient’s emotions are discussed. Then the homeopathic practitioner will select the remedy that most closely matches the symptoms.
Such optimism might be refreshing, but is there any reason for it? Is homeopathy really an effective treatment for IBS? To answer this question, we now have a brand-new Cochrane review. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of homeopathic treatment for treating irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). (This type of statement always makes me a little suspicious; how on earth can anyone truly assess the safety of a treatment by looking at a few studies? This is NOT how one evaluates safety!) The authors conducted extensive literature searches to identify all RCTs, cohort and case-control studies that compared homeopathic treatment with placebo, other control treatments, or usual care in adults with IBS. The primary outcome was global improvement in IBS.
Three RCTs with a total of 213 participants were included. No cohort or case-control studies were identified. Two studies compared homeopathic remedies to placebos for constipation-predominant IBS. One study compared individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care defined as high doses of dicyclomine hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents and a high fibre diet. Due to the low quality of reporting, the risk of bias in all three studies was unclear on most criteria and high for some criteria.
A meta-analysis of two studies with a total of 129 participants with constipation-predominant IBS found a statistically significant difference in global improvement between the homeopathic ‘asafoetida’ and placebo at a short-term follow-up of two weeks. Seventy-three per cent of patients in the homeopathy group improved compared to 45% of placebo patients. There was no statistically significant difference in global improvement between the homeopathic asafoetida plus nux vomica compared to placebo. Sixty-eight per cent of patients in the homeopathy group improved compared to 52% of placebo patients.
The overall quality of the evidence was very low. There was no statistically significant difference between individualised homeopathic treatment and usual care for the outcome “feeling unwell”. None of the studies reported on adverse events (which, by the way, should be seen as a breech in research ethics on the part of the authors of the three primary studies).
The authors concluded that a pooled analysis of two small studies suggests a possible benefit for clinical homeopathy, using the remedy asafoetida, over placebo for people with constipation-predominant IBS. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of reporting in these trials, high or unknown risk of bias, short-term follow-up, and sparse data. One small study found no statistically difference between individualised homeopathy and usual care (defined as high doses of dicyclomine hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents and diet sheets advising a high fibre diet). No conclusions can be drawn from this study due to the low number of participants and the high risk of bias in this trial. In addition, it is likely that usual care has changed since this trial was conducted. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are required to assess the efficacy and safety of clinical and individualised homeopathy compared to placebo or usual care.
THIS REVIEW REQUIRES A FEW FURTHER COMMENTS, I THINK
Asafoetida, the remedy used in two of the studies, is a plant native to Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. It is used in Ayurvedic herbal medicine to treat colic, intestinal parasites and irritable bowel syndrome. In the ‘homeopathic’ trials, asafoetida was used in relatively low dilutions, one that still contains molecules. It is therefore debatable whether this was really homeopathy or whether it is more akin to herbal medicine – it was certainly not homeopathy with its typical ultra-high dilutions.
Regardless of this detail, the Cochrane review does hardly provide sound evidence for homeopathy’s efficacy. On the contrary, my reading of its findings is that the ‘possible benefit’ is NOT real but a false positive result caused by the serious limitations of the original studies. The authors stress that the apparently positive result ‘should be interpreted with caution’; that is certainly correct.
So, if you are a proponent of homeopathy, as the authors of the review seem to be, you will claim that homeopathy offers ‘possible benefits’ for IBS-sufferers. But if you are not convinced of the merits of homeopathy, you might suggest that the evidence is insufficient to recommend homeopathy. I imagine that IBS-sufferers might get as frustrated with such confusion as most scientists will be. Yet there is hope; the answer could be imminent: apparently, a new trial is to report its results within this year.
IS THIS NEW TRIAL GOING TO CONTRIBUTE MEANINGFULLY TO OUR KNOWLEDGE?
It is a three-armed study (same 1st author as in the Cochrane review) which, according to its authors, seeks to explore the effectiveness of individualised homeopathic treatment plus usual care compared to both an attention control plus usual care and usual care alone, for patients with IBS. (Why “explore” and not “determine”, I ask myself.) Patients are randomly selected to be offered, 5 sessions of homeopathic treatment plus usual care, 5 sessions of supportive listening plus usual care or usual care alone. (“To be offered” looks odd to me; does that mean patients are not blinded to the interventions? Yes, indeed it does.) The primary clinical outcome is the IBS Symptom Severity at 26 weeks. Analysis will be by intention to treat and will compare homeopathic treatment with usual care at 26 weeks as the primary analysis, and homeopathic treatment with supportive listening as an additional analysis.
Hold on…the primary analysis “will compare homeopathic treatment with usual care“. Are they pulling my leg? They just told me that patients will be “offered, 5 sessions of homeopathic treatment plus usual care… or usual care alone“.
Oh, I see! We are again dealing with an A+B versus B design, on top of it without patient- or therapist-blinding. This type of analysis cannot ever produce a negative result, even if the experimental treatment is a pure placebo: placebo + usual care is always more than usual care alone. IBS-patients will certainly experience benefit from having the homeopaths’ time, empathy and compassion – never mind the remedies they get from them. And for the secondary analyses, things do not seem to be much more rigorous either.
Do we really need more trials of this nature? The Cochrane review shows that we currently have three studies which are too flimsy to be interpretable. What difference will a further flimsy trial make in this situation? When will we stop wasting time and money on such useless ‘research’? All it can possibly achieve is that apologists of homeopathy will misinterpret the results and suggest that they demonstrate efficacy.
Obviously, I have not seen the data (they have not yet been published) but I think I can nevertheless predict the conclusions of the primary analysis of this trial; they will read something like this: HOMEOPATHY PROVED TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EFFECTIVE THAN USUAL CARE. I have asked the question before and I do it again: when does this sort of ‘research’ cross the line into the realm of scientific misconduct?
10 Responses to Homeopathy for IBS? When will we stop wasting resources on such useless pseudo-research?
Leave a Reply to Irene Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
“In the ‘homeopathic’ trials, asafoetida was used in relatively low dilutions, one that still contains molecules. It is therefore debatable whether this was really homeopathy or whether it is more akin to herbal medicine – it was certainly not homeopathy with its typical ultra-high dilutions.
Dr, Ernst Classical homeopathy typically does use lower dilutions containing molecules.
Regarding ” the evidence is insufficient to recommend homeopathy” – sure – maybe people who must make a choice they will decide themselves after reading the results and your opinion on the results.
when does this sort of ’research’ cross the line into the realm of scientific misconduct?
When, indeed?
These kinds of rubbish studies also make it difficult to have a rational conversation with someone who claims, “there are studies to support…..” There is seldom time to explain why said studies are usually rubbish.
“is that the ‘possible benefit’ is NOT real but a false positive result caused by the serious limitations of the original studies.”
Can you give a valid reason for that? Why is false positive? It might be non conclusive i In the absence of data one can state only that – not enough good quality data to verify that the observed effect is real.
Unless you don’t believe that homeopathy could have a real effect—— in that case your don’t need any studies to arrive to a conclusion.
Are you sure?
yes, fairly sure!
BUT
there can always be freak results.
the study you cite is not a freak result but, if you look carefully, usual care was not equal in both groups. thus the design was more like A plus half B versus B.
the trial I discussed above has just been published – and my prediction regarding its outcome has been correct. here is the abstract IN FULL:
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic condition for which there is no consensus on the optimum treatment. Gastroenterology problems are some of the most common conditions treated by homeopaths, yet few trials have explored the effectiveness of individualised homeopathic treatment for IBS. A three-armed trial was conducted which compared: usual care, homeopathic treatment plus usual care and supportive listening plus usual care. The primary outcome was change in irritable bowel symptom severity score between baseline and 26 weeks, calculated using ANCOVA. An interim ANCOVA adjusted for baseline IBS severity, age and employment status found no statistically significant difference between the three arms. However, a post-hoc test comparing homeopathic treatment plus usual care to usual care alone found a statistically significant difference in favour of homeopathic treatment. In addition, 62.5 percent of patients in the homeopathic treatment arm (compared to 25.0 percent of those in the usual care arm), achieved a clinically relevant change in irritable bowel symptom severity score, which indicates a promising effect for homeopathic treatment, though these results should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of participants in the study.
So many warning signs overall! The A + B v B design, the low number of participants, the cyclical nature of IBS, regression to the mean, placebo factors… But it does look like here that, failing to get a result favourable to homeopathy, they did some digging to find that one comparison that turned out positive for homeopathy…
I need to read the paper in full, but you do have to wonder why they have spent so much time on this. Even with these ‘interim’ results, surely any researcher with an ounce of self-awareness, integrity and scientific understanding must by now realise that they have been heading down a dead end? Only a true believer in homeopathy would continue to waste further resources on this. It may (will!) impress the homeopathy supporters and the unaware, but no one else.
There may have been an excuse a few decades ago for conducting a methodologically poor study such as this one, with so many obvious and well-understood failings, but why are these still being done by homeopaths and others?
It’s almost as if they know…
what puzzles me is the use of the term ‘interim analysis’. is it not rather a final analysis of an aborted study? if so, is the use of that term fraudulent?
Indeed. Very odd… I wonder if they are going to do more dredging?