A recent review has proved that the effects of homeopathic medicines are not just about being a placebo, says Dr Kushal Banerjee
If the Delhi pollution levels have pushed up the saturation of allergens and aggravated sinus and nasal disorders, then alternative treatment with homoeopathy may offer some answers. There is no permanent cure in conventional medicine for this condition and prolonged use of anti-allergy medicines results in adverse effects and decreased patient response to watering or blocked nose.
A systematic review (SR) was undertaken by a research team led by me and researchers from the University of Oxford, the Imperial College, london and the Homeopathy Research Institute, london. The objective was to test the efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment of a condition called Allergic Rhinitis (AR). After almost three years, this is the first ever such paper on this condition, involving all forms of homeopathy.
By some estimates, AR affects 500 million people globally. It is also being increasingly considered as a precursor to the development of bronchial asthma. The symptoms of AR include sneezing, running and blocked nose, watering and burning eyes. This condition is very commonly seen in urban settings with high levels of pollution. Pollens, dust and smoke are some of the common allergens that trigger this condition. By pooling the data from trials, which were similar enough for this form of analysis, the researchers found that homeopathic treatment is likely to be effective for treatment of symptoms of AR. Particularly, GalphimiaGlauca, a homeopathic medicine from the herb of the same name, is effective in treatment of AR symptoms. A homeopathic nasal spray was also found to have some beneficial effect.
GalphimiaGlauca was seen to be effective in controlling the eye related symptoms of AR which are very distressful for the patient. Symptoms like itching, burning sensation and watering of the eyes are some of the biggest sources of discomfort for patients of AR. The homeopathic nasal spray appears to be as effective as a conventional nasal spray in controlling symptoms of AR. It provided relief primarily to the nasal symptoms. Blocked nose, running nose, sneezing episodes, burning and itching sensation in the nose are the common nasal symptoms of AR.
These conclusions are extremely important for several reasons. For the first time, a systematic review of this level of methodological rigour has demonstrated clinical effectiveness of homeopathic treatment. Given the results of this review, it is likely that well-designed clinical trials of homeopathic treatment of AR with higher quality will also yield similar results. The results also run contrary to the incorrectly held understanding that the effects of homeopathic medicines are similar to that of placebo. Under these strict criteria, the review demonstrates that homeopathic medicines have clear and positive therapeutic effects.
The team of researchers was keen to adhere to the highest standards of medical research to mitigate any doubt about the conclusions of their research. To this end, they published the protocol for their review, in a peer reviewed journal. This has never been done in homeopathic research before. By publishing the protocol and making it available in the public domain, the researchers ensured that any deviation from the protocol would be immediately noticeable and will require an explanation in the final paper.
An SR generates evidence that is far more powerful than single clinical trials. It pools the data from different clinical studies and provides a clearer answer to whether an intervention works for a disease. This research team laid down strict inclusion criteria to ensure that only the highest quality trials were included. This, in turn, ensured that the results of the review would be robust and hold up to scrutiny. A search strategy was designed to identify, every relevant paper, ever published on this condition.The search period spanned over 40 years. The search of the papers yielded close to 1,000 papers across different indexed databases for medical research. After testing each of these papers against the inclusion criteria, eleven studies were considered suitable for inclusion in the SR.
These studies were then run through rigorous quality assessment methods using contemporary research methodology. They were assessed for risk of bias, design flaws and missing data amongst other factors. This review provides an accurate, complete and fair representation of the current evidence in the treatment of AR using homeopathic interventions.
The review was limited in its conclusions due to the small number and overall quality of the trials. Its conclusions are deliberately littered with caveats to impart maximum objectivity to interpretations of its results.
SRs, which assess the efficacy of prevalent conventional medicines, also arrive at similar conclusions more than 50 per cent of the time. This similarity in the conclusions of this review on homeopathy with others on conventional medicine is important to bear in mind while interpreting the results of this SR.
The researchers hope that with the promising results of this SR, more homeopaths will be encouraged to undertake well designed research on this important clinical condition. Moreover, it is hoped that doctors of all forms of medicine will consider homeopathic treatment as a viable option for the treatment of AR.