Homeopathic Treatment as an Add-On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Three-Arm, Multicenter Study.

LESSONS LEARNED: Conventional medicine and homeopathy work well together. Quality of life improves with additive homeopathy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Survival improves with additive homeopathy in patients with NSCLC. BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have limited treatment options. Alongside conventional anticancer treatment, additive homeopathy might help to alleviate side effects of conventional therapy. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether additive homeopathy might influence quality of life (QoL) and survival in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm, multicenter, phase III study, we evaluated the possible effects of additive homeopathic treatment compared with placebo in patients with stage IV NSCLC, with respect to QoL in the two randomized groups and survival time in all three groups. Treated patients visited the outpatients' centers every 9 weeks: 150 patients with stage IV NSCLC were included in the study; 98 received either individualized homeopathic remedies (n = 51) or placebo (n = 47) in a double-blinded fashion; and 52 control patients without any homeopathic treatment were observed for survival only. The constituents of the different homeopathic remedies were mainly of plant, mineral, or animal origin. The remedies were manufactured by stepwise dilution and succussion, thereby preparing stable Good Manufacturing Practice grade formulations. RESULTS: QoL as well as functional and symptom scales showed significant improvement in the homeopathy group when compared with placebo after 9 and 18 weeks of homeopathic treatment (p < .001). Median survival time was significantly longer in the homeopathy group (435 days) versus placebo (257 days; p = .010) as well as versus control (228 days; p < .001). Survival rate in the homeopathy group differed significantly from placebo (p = .020) and from control (p < .001). CONCLUSION: QoL improved significantly in the homeopathy group compared with placebo. In addition, survival was significantly longer in the homeopathy group versus placebo and control. A higher QoL might have contributed to the prolonged survival. The study suggests that homeopathy positively influences not only QoL but also survival. Further studies including other tumor entities are warranted.

Real-life effect of classical homeopathy in the treatment of allergies: A multicenter prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of allergic disorders in western industrialized countries has steadily increased during the last three decades. Public acceptance of complementary treatment methods is high. The aim of this study was to assess the real-life efficacy of classical homeopathic treatment and the potential to reduce conventional medication dosage. METHODS: A prospective multicenter observational study was conducted by general practitioners specializing in homeopathy in nine Austrian test centers. Personal data and symptoms of allergic patients diagnosed with allergic conjunctivitis, allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma and neurodermatitis before and after homeopathic treatment were assessed by means of questionnaires (classification of patients' condition by using visual analogue scales/VAS). RESULTS: 40 out of 44 patients originally recruited for the trial were found to meet the eligibility criteria. All clinical symptoms were shown to improve substantially, in most cases quite markedly (p < 0.001). 21 patients undergoing conventional medication therapy at baseline (62%) were able to discontinue at least one medication, while the remaining patients (38%) reported a dose reduction in at least one medication. No side effects were reported during treatment. CONCLUSION: The symptoms of patients undergoing homeopathic treatment were shown to improve substantially and conventional medication dosage could be substantially reduced. While the real-life effect assessed indicates that there is a potential for enhancing therapeutic measures and reducing healthcare cost, it does not allow to draw conclusions as to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment per se.