Effectiveness of a homeopathic complex medicine in infantile colic: A randomized multicenter study

ObjectivesInfantile colic is a common benign disease occurring in early infancy that may have a great impact on family life. In the present study, the effectiveness and safety of the complex homeopathic medicine Enterokind was compared with Simethicone for treating infantile colic.Design and settingCurrent data were drawn from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial that was conducted in 2009 in 3 Russian outpatient clinics. Children received either Enterokind (Chamomilla D6, Cina D6, Colocynthis D6, Lac defloratum D6 and Magnesium chloratum D6) or Simethicone. Data from infants ≤ 6 months with infantile colic are presented here.Main outcome measuresThe main outcomes assessments were the change of total complaints score (maximum 17 points) and total objective symptoms score (maximum 22 points) after 10 days of treatment.ResultsData from 125 infants ≤ 6 months with infantile colic were analyzed. The differences in total complaints and objective symptoms scores between baseline and day 10, estimated from the ANCOVA model, were found to be highly significant (p < 0.0001; ITT) in favor of Enterokind, both for complaints (Δ=-2.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): [-2.87; -1.89]) and for objective symptoms (Δ=-2.07; 95% CI: [-2.65; -1.49]). 1 adverse event (AE), vomiting, occurred under Enterokind and was rated to be unlikely related to it; 4 AEs occurred under Simethicone. All AEs were non-serious.ConclusionsThe current study indicates that Enterokind is an effective and safe homeopathic treatment for functional intestinal colic in infants ≤ 6 months.     

Complementary and alternative medicine among hospitalized pediatric patients

ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence and describe the characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among hospitalized children, and to discover the awareness of medical staff regarding CAM use.Design/SettingParents of children aged 0–18 years admitted to the Pediatric Division at Assaf Harofeh Medical Center in Israel between January and July of 2015 (n = 146) were provided a questionnaire regarding socio-economic status and evaluating the CAM use. The medical charts of the participants were reviewed in order to establish whether or not CAM use was documented.ResultsOf those who completed the questionnaire, 78 (54.3%) were using CAM. The major indications for CAM use were colic and teething. CAM use was advised by the family in 44.9%, physician 34.6%, pharmacist 34.6%, friends 30.8%, previous experience 23.1, advertisements 18%, nurses 6.4%, and homeopaths 2.6%. The family physician was aware of CAM use was in 42%. During the admission, only 5 patients were asked about CAM use (3.4%) by the medical staff. Reviewing the medical charts revealed there was no documentation of CAM use in any of the participants. Socio-demographic analysis of our population revealed no differences between users and non users of CAM, but significant differences in belief in CAM (p = 0.018) were found. CAM use was age related; the older the child the less the use (p = 0.010).ConclusionCAM use is common among hospitalized pediatric patients and is often overlooked by the medical staff. CAM use should be included in the medical history.     

Delayed luminescence of high homeopathic potencies on sugar globuli

Delayed luminescence signals of Arg.met. CMf (100Mf), Canth. CMf, Bov. CMf absorbed onto sugar globuli was observed by exciting them at their known resonance frequency of 2.060 MHz. Arn. CMf also showed delayed luminescence when excited at 2.060 MHz and at 1.828 MHz. Alc. LMK (50MK) could not be excited by 2.060 MHz and showed properties of control globuli. Canth. LMK could not be excited at 2.006 MHz. The delayed luminescence signals were characterized by the coefficient B(2) typical of the delayed luminescence of non-living complex systems, and by the coefficient B(0) typical of living systems. Both coefficients can be considered as indicative of holistic quantum structures in homeopathic potencies.     

Adverse effects of homeopathy,what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ObjectivesHomeopathy is a popular treatment modality among patient, however there is sparse research about adverse effects of homeopathy. A concept unique for homeopathy, is homeopathic aggravation that is understood as a transient worsening of the patients’ symptoms before an expected improvement occurs. From a risk perspective it is vital that a distinction between homeopathic aggravations and adverse effects is established. There is a lack of systematic information on how frequent adverse effects and homeopathic aggravations are reported in studies. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.Design and settingSixteen electronic databases were searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The searches were limited from the year 1995 to January 2011. Forty-one RCTs, with a total of 6.055 participants were included. A subtotal of 39 studies was included in the additional meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 28 trials (68%) reported adverse effects and five trials (12%) reported homeopathic aggravations. The meta-analysis (including six subgroup comparisons) demonstrated that no significant difference was found between homeopathy and control with OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86–1.14, I² = 54%. More than two third of the adverse effects were classified as grade 1 (68%) and two third were classified as grade 2 (25%) and grade 3 (6%) according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects. Homeopathic aggravation was classified as grade 1 (98%) and grade 3 (2%), suggesting that homeopathic aggravations were reported to be less severe than adverse effects. The methodological quality according to a method recommended in the Cochrane handbook for RCTs, was high.ConclusionAdverse effects including the concept of homeopathic aggravations are commonly reported in trials. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the proportion of patients experiencing adverse effects to be similar for patients randomized to homeopathic treatment compared to patients randomized to placebo and conventional medicine.     

'Homeopathy': untangling the debate

There are active public campaigns both for and against homeopathy, and its continuing availability in the NHS is debated in the medical, scientific and popular press. However, there is a lack of clarity in key terms used in the debate, and in how the evidence base of homeopathy is described and interpreted. The term 'homeopathy' is used with several different meanings including: the therapeutic system, homeopathic medicine, treatment by a homeopath, and the principles of 'homeopathy'. Conclusions drawn from one of these aspects are often inappropriately applied to another aspect. In interpreting the homeopathy evidence it is important to understand that the existing clinical experimental (randomised controlled trial) evidence base provides evidence as to the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, but not the effectiveness of treatment by a homeopath. The observational evidence base provides evidence as to the effectiveness of treatment by a homeopath. We make four recommendations to promote clarity in the reporting, design and interpretation of homeopathy research.     

British media attacks on homeopathy: Are they justified?

Homeopathy is being attacked by the British media. These attacks draw support from irresponsible and unjustified claims by certain teachers of homeopathy. Such claims include the use of 'dream' and 'imaginative' methods for provings. For prescribing some such teachers attempt to replace the laborious process of matching symptom picture and remedy with spurious theories based on 'signatures', sensations and other methods. Other irresponsible claims have also been made. These "new ideas" risk destroying the principles, theory, and practice of homeopathy.