This study aimed to evaluate whether individualized homeopathic medicines have a greater adjunctive effect than adjunctive placebos in the treatment of moderate and severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It was designed as a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial set in the clinical context of standard care. Patients admitted in a tertiary care hospital, suffering from moderate or severe COVID-19 and above 18 years of age were included. In total, 150 patients were randomly divided into two groups to receive either:
- individualized homeopathic medicines
- or placebos.
Both options were administered in addition to the standard treatment of COVID-19.
The primary outcome was time taken to achieve RT-PCR-confirmed virus clearance for COVID-19. Secondary outcomes were changes in the Clinical Ordinal Outcomes Scale (COOS) of the World Health Organization, the patient-reported MYMOP2 scale, and several biochemical parameters. Parametric data were analyzed using unpaired t-test. Non-parametric data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Categorical data were analyzed using Chi-square test.
In total, 72 participants of the add-on homeopathy (AoH) group showed conversion of RT-PCR status to negative, in an average time of 7.53 ± 4.76 days (mean ± SD), as compared with 11.65 ± 9.54 days in the add-on placebo (AoP) group (p = 0.001). The mean COOS score decreased from 4.26 ± 0.44 to 3.64 ± 1.50 and from 4.3 ± 0.46 to 4.07 ± 1.8 in the AoH and AoP groups respectively (p = 0.130). The mortality rate for the AoH group was 9.7% compared with 17.3% in the AoP group. The MYMOP2 scores between the two groups differed significantly (p = 0.001), in favor of AoH. Inter-group differences in the pre- and post- mean values of C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, total leukocyte count, platelet count and alkaline phosphatase were each found to be statistically significant (p <0.05), favoring AoH; six other biochemical parameters showed no statistically significant differences.
The authors concluded that the study suggests homeopathy may be an effective adjunct to standard care for treating moderate and severe COVID-19 patients. More rigorous, including double-blinded, studies should be performed to confirm or refute these initial findings.
I do agree with the authors that more rigorous studies are needed before we can accept these findings. As it stands, this study seems to have multiple flaws:
- I fail to understand why they did not design their trial as a double-blind study. The reason given by the authors makes little sense to me.
- I also have my doubts that the study was even single-blind. If I understand it correctly, the placebo group was did not benefit from the detailed homeopathic history taking that is necessary to find the optimal homeopathic remedy. If that is so, unblinding of patients is inevitable.
- The authors themselves point out that the relevance of many outcome measures is questionable
Generally speaking, I find the results suspicious, implausible, and frankly too good to be true. I might also point out that the authors’ afilitation do not inspire much trust in their objectivity:
- 1Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi, India.
- 2Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, New Delhi, India.
- 3Rejoice Health Foundation, New Delhi, India.
- 4Department of Onco-Anaesthesia and Palliative Medicine, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital and National Cancer Institute, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, India.
- 5Department of Onco-Anaesthesia and Palliative Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, India.
Neither do these statements:
Funding
The study was funded by the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. The funder approved the study through its review committees, delegated/recruited staff for conducting the study, and facilitated all collaborative procedures.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
Lastly, I do wonder why the authors published their study in the 3rd class journal ‘Homeopathy’. Surely, such findings – if true – deserve to be published in a journal of a decent reputation!
5 Responses to Homeopathy as an Adjuvant to Standard Care in Moderate and Severe Cases of COVID-19
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
It doesn’t matter how well designed is the study; homoeopathy is a nonsense and can be dispensed without any critical analysis. Bullshit is bullshot, just a s a pig with lipstick is still a pig.
@Frank Collins
The big problem is that especially nationalist forces in India have awarded homeopathy the status of ‘national healthcare system’ and therefore an important source of national pride, much like TCM in China. Which is a major incentive for anyone involved in researching homeopathy in India to come up with positive results, or at least not negative results.
“In total, 72 participants of the add-on homeopathy (AoH) group showed conversion of RT-PCR status to negative, in an average time of 7.53 ± 4.76 days (mean ± SD), as compared with 11.65 ± 9.54 days in the add-on placebo (AoP) group (p = 0.001).”
Impossible. Wrong statistic.
If ± 2 standard deviations can’t be contained numerically within the arithmetic mean, it means that the observed values are not normally distributed and thus do not meet the requirement for calculating the arithmetic mean in the first place. Non-parametric statistics should have been used instead, and the impressive p value is false, very false.
In this case, where a negative number of days is hilariously unthinkable, the misuse of statistics is particularly blatant. One may suspect that there also may be some more elusive and deceptive examples hidden in this “study”. It should never have been published.
All patients should have had exactly the same history/evaluation and prescriptions made in accordance with homeopathic protocols.
Only when the prescription was taken to the dispensary should the dispender determine by random number selection whether the ‘remedy’ handed out was ‘placebo’ or ‘real’ – and the dsipenser shold not have known which either – everything should be done randomly and without anyone knowing the code number or its relevance.
And of course the outcome/assessment made and only then the randomisation code broken and aligned with the remedy the patient received.
Why did they not do this?
Because they know what the answer would be!!
A more important question is “Why spend time, trouble, and funds on this sort of thing?”
Are there Conflicts of interest?
The Indian Company branch oft “Wilhelm Schwabe, – “Verantwortung, Verbindlichkeit, Vertrauen, Miteinander, Respekt und Transparenz sind unsere zentralen Tugenden” – advertise yoga and SCAM for poor Indian people Düring the Covid-pandemia.
… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9254763/