Homeopathic medication for seasonal allergic rhinitis-a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

IF 3.4 Q2 ALLERGY
Frontiers in allergy Pub Date : 2026-07-17 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/falgy.2026.1815934
J Siewert, H Cramer, M Ortiz, T Tissen-Diabaté, S Roll, K Wegscheider, K Linde, T Reinhold, S N Willich, M Teut, B Brinkhaus
{"title":"Homeopathic medication for seasonal allergic rhinitis-a randomised placebo-controlled trial.","authors":"J Siewert, H Cramer, M Ortiz, T Tissen-Diabaté, S Roll, K Wegscheider, K Linde, T Reinhold, S N Willich, M Teut, B Brinkhaus","doi":"10.3389/falgy.2026.1815934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic medication in SAR patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a double-blind, three-arm randomised trial, patients at eleven outpatient clinics and two medical centres were randomised to receive (1) individualised homeopathic case taking (IHCT) and standardised homeopathic medication with Galphimia Glauca (GG), (2) IHCT and individualised homeopathic treatment (IHG), or (3) IHCT and placebo (PG). Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life, assessed using the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) after three and four weeks. Secondary outcomes included response rate (≥0.5-point change in RQLQ), rescue medication use, and total nasal and non-nasal symptom scores (TNSS, TNNSS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-two SAR patients (mean age ± SD: 46.9 ± 14.9; 43.5% female) were recruited, approximately 25% of the planned sample size. After weeks three and four, there were no significant differences in RQLQ (<i>p</i> = 0.244) between GG (adjusted mean, 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.7), IHG (1.7, 1.2-2.3), and PG (1.4, 0.8-2.0). High response rates were observed (GG: 86.4%, IHG: 66.7%, PG: 81.3%), while RM use was 21.7%, 55.6%, and 29.4%, respectively. There were no relevant differences in RM score, TNSS and TNNSS between the three groups. Eight adverse events but no serious adverse events were reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Standardised and individualised homeopathic drugs were not superior compared to placebo suggesting that treatment response was not based on study medication. The validity of the study and its conclusions are limited by the fact that the recruitment target was not achieved.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study has been registered in the German Clinical Trial Registry with trial ID DRKS00018081.</p>","PeriodicalId":73062,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in allergy","volume":"7 ","pages":"1815934"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13424193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in allergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2026.1815934","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic medication in SAR patients.

Methods: In a double-blind, three-arm randomised trial, patients at eleven outpatient clinics and two medical centres were randomised to receive (1) individualised homeopathic case taking (IHCT) and standardised homeopathic medication with Galphimia Glauca (GG), (2) IHCT and individualised homeopathic treatment (IHG), or (3) IHCT and placebo (PG). Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life, assessed using the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) after three and four weeks. Secondary outcomes included response rate (≥0.5-point change in RQLQ), rescue medication use, and total nasal and non-nasal symptom scores (TNSS, TNNSS).

Results: Sixty-two SAR patients (mean age ± SD: 46.9 ± 14.9; 43.5% female) were recruited, approximately 25% of the planned sample size. After weeks three and four, there were no significant differences in RQLQ (p = 0.244) between GG (adjusted mean, 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.7), IHG (1.7, 1.2-2.3), and PG (1.4, 0.8-2.0). High response rates were observed (GG: 86.4%, IHG: 66.7%, PG: 81.3%), while RM use was 21.7%, 55.6%, and 29.4%, respectively. There were no relevant differences in RM score, TNSS and TNNSS between the three groups. Eight adverse events but no serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion: Standardised and individualised homeopathic drugs were not superior compared to placebo suggesting that treatment response was not based on study medication. The validity of the study and its conclusions are limited by the fact that the recruitment target was not achieved.

Trial registration: This study has been registered in the German Clinical Trial Registry with trial ID DRKS00018081.

顺势疗法治疗季节性变应性鼻炎-随机安慰剂对照试验。
背景:本研究旨在评价顺势疗法药物治疗SAR患者的疗效。方法:在一项双盲,三组随机试验中,11个门诊诊所和2个医疗中心的患者随机接受(1)个体化顺势疗法(IHCT)和标准化的顺势疗法治疗(GG), (2) IHCT和个体化顺势疗法治疗(IHG),或(3)IHCT和安慰剂(PG)。主要结局是疾病特异性生活质量,在3周和4周后使用鼻炎生活质量问卷(RQLQ)进行评估。次要结局包括缓解率(RQLQ≥0.5点变化)、抢救用药、鼻及非鼻症状总评分(TNSS、TNNSS)。结果:共招募了62例SAR患者(平均年龄±SD: 46.9±14.9;43.5%为女性),约为计划样本量的25%。在第3周和第4周后,GG(校正平均,1.2,95% CI 0.7-1.7)、IHG(1.7, 1.2-2.3)和PG(1.4, 0.8-2.0)之间的RQLQ无显著差异(p = 0.244)。观察到高有效率(GG: 86.4%, IHG: 66.7%, PG: 81.3%), RM使用率分别为21.7%,55.6%和29.4%。三组患者RM评分、TNSS、TNNSS均无相关差异。8例不良事件,未见严重不良事件。结论:与安慰剂相比,标准化和个体化顺势疗法药物并不优越,这表明治疗反应不是基于研究药物。由于没有达到招聘目标,这项研究及其结论的有效性受到限制。试验注册:本研究已在德国临床试验注册中心注册,试验ID为DRKS00018081。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书