Recent Research Accomplishments
Basic science research in homeopathy has primarily involved investigations into the chemical and biological activity of highly diluted substances. The most thought-provoking research has involved observation of the physiological responses of living systems to homeopathically potentized solutions. For example, in the 1920s a German researcher conducted a series of studies spanning 12 years in which he showed periodic variations in the growth patterns of plants that had been exposed to a series of homeopathic dilutions of metallic salts (Kolisko, 1932). With the focus of modern biological laboratory research on cellular and organ function, homeopathic studies have more recently been conducted in this area. Such laboratory studies have shown positive effects of homeopathically prepared microdoses. (Davenas et al., 1987), (Cazin et al., 1987), (Doutremepuich et al., 1987), (Davenas et al., 1988; Poitevin et al., 1988).
Furthermore, recent clinical trials in Europe have suggested a positive effect of homeopathic medicines on such conditions as allergic rhinitis (Reilly et al., 1986), fibrositis (Fisher et al., 1989), and influenza (Ferley et al., 1989), while an earlier study showed no apparent effect in the treatment of osteoarthritis by a homeopathic medicine (Shipley et al., 1983). The British Medical Journal published a meta-analysis in 1992 of homeopathic clinical trials, which found that 15 of 22 well-designed studies showed positive results. This study concluded that more methodologically rigorous trials should be done to address the question of efficacy of homeopathic treatment (Kleijnen et al., 1991). A recent double-blind study comparing homeopathic treatment with placebo in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea found a statistically significant improvement in the group receiving the homeopathic treatment (Jacobs et al., 1993).
Homeopathic research study design has used different methodologies depending on the question being asked. One of the earliest studies of homeopathy in a peer-reviewed conventional medical journal asked the question, "Is the homeopathic medical system taken as a whole more effective or less detrimental than another treatment or placebo in the condition studied?" In this study, which focused on rheumatoid arthritis, 195 patients who had previously been treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were allocated to placebo treatment or active treatment. The active-treatment population then was divided between aspirin and a homeopathic medication. The homeopathic doctors were allowed to prescribe any medication at whatever interval, frequency, or potency they considered appropriate.
The trial was conducted for a year, and by the end of the year almost 43 percent of the homeopathic treatment group had stopped other treatments and were judged to have improved since the beginning of the study. Another 24 percent of the homeopathic group improved, but they continued on their conventional medications. In contrast, only 15 percent of the aspirin group were maintained and improved on the treatment. The entire placebo group had dropped out within 6 weeks.
This study, however, was criticized on some methodological grounds -- principally that the homeopathic prescribers were more committed to the treatment and the patients were easily able to determine who was in the placebo group (Gibson et al., 1978). Subsequently, the same researchers conducted another trial of this type, in which a specific disease was subjected to homeopathic treatment by any one of a number of clinically indicated homeopathic medications. This time, a placebo-controlled, double-blind study showed that the improvements among the homeopathically treated patients were statistically more significant than those of the placebo group (Gibson et al., 1980).
A second type of homeopathic study has been used to ask a more specific question, namely, Is a particular homeopathic medication more effective than another treatment or placebo for a particular disease? Fisher and colleagues (1989) asked this question in a study of primary fibromyalgia, a type of inflammation; patients who met recognized diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia were further stratified as patients for whom a particular homeopathic medicine, rhus toxicodendron 6C, was homeopathically indicated. Patients with the active treatment were better on all variables, and a number of their tender points were reduced by 25 percent at the end of 4 weeks of active treatment in comparison with controls.
In a similar study, Reilly and colleagues (1986) used homeopathic medications with hay fever patients to address the issue of whether homeopathic medications are in fact placebos. The researchers directly treated matched groups of approximately 70 patients with a homeopathic medication made from mixed grass pollens at the dilution of one part in 1060. This was done to address the assertion that a potency lacking in any of the original substances could act as more than a placebo. Patients took one tablet twice daily of either placebo or the test drug and were free to use a standard antihistamine at any time during the 5-week study. Only the homeopathically treated group showed a clear reduction in symptoms, and in comparison with the placebo-treated group, twice as many of the homeopathically treated patients had discontinued their antihistamines. This study also demonstrated that even a simple study design requires careful analysis of potential confounding variables, including the clinical observations that some homeopathically treated patients experience temporary aggravation of their symptoms before achieving a sustained improvement.
A third type of study simply looks at comparative utilization figures for homeopathic practitioners in a health care system with or without attention to the comparative clinical outcomes. For example, in France, research on cost-effectiveness has shown that the annual cost to the social security system for a homeopathic physician is 54 percent lower than the cost for a conventional physician. Moreover, the same study found that the price of the average homeopathic medicine is one-third that of standard drugs (CNAM, 1991).
Recent surveys in the United States found that most homeopathic patients seek care for chronic illnesses (Jacobs and Crothers, 1991) and that homeopathic physicians spend twice as much time with their patients, order half as many laboratory tests and procedures, and prescribe fewer drugs (Jacobs, 1992). Since treatment of chronic illness accounts for a large proportion of health care expenditures in the United States, the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic medicine should be investigated by comparing homeopathy with conventional treatments for specific chronic illnesses such as recurrent childhood ear infections, allergies, arthritis, headaches, depression, and asthma. Clinical outcomes should be measured as well as such factors as utilization of health services, number of missed days of work or school, patient satisfaction, and overall cost of health care. This research will help determine whether incorporating homeopathy into the national health care scheme would significantly reduce health care costs.
Green Pharmaceuticals, SnoreStop, The Snoring Specialists and NasoSpray are registered trademarks of Green Pharmaceuticals, Inc. SnoreStop Extinguisher, FastTabs, NasoClear, Green Pharmacy and Green Medicine and 'The Choice is Clear' are trademarks of Green Pharmaceuticals.