Homeopathy for chronic conditions

Healthier at little extra cost

Homeopathy effective for chronic conditions

EICCAM study (European Information Centre for Complementary & Alternative Medicine)

Chronically ill patients benefit more from homeopathic treatment than from conventional medicine at roughly the same cost. This was shown by a German study of 315 adults and 178 children over a 12‑month period. Half of the patients received homeopathic treatment, the other half received conventional treatment. Health status improved in both groups, but the patients treated with homeopathy showed an even more significant improvement.

Total costs including doctor visits, medicines and hospital stays were almost identical for both groups among adults, while they were on average higher for children treated with homeopathy.

Summary of study results and commentary

C. Witt et al: Success and costs of homeopathic versus conventional treatment: A comparative study of patients with chronic conditions, Complementary Therapies in Medicine 13/2005, 79‐86. 

This report was prepared in February 2009 by the European Information Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (EICCAM). EICCAM has endeavoured to ensure accuracy and completeness but cannot guarantee it (www.eiccam.eu).

Summary

© S.Hofschlaeger / PIXELIO

Study details

Patients receiving homeopathic treatment were free to additionally use conventional therapies, and conventionally treated patients were also allowed to take homeopathic remedies.

In total 493 patients participated in the study, of whom 265 (174 adults and 91 children) were treated homeopathically and 228 (141 adults and 87 children) were treated conventionally. All patients were chronically ill. The adults suffered from headaches, back pain, depression, sleep disorders or sinusitis, while the children had atopic dermatitis, hay fever or asthma. All patients underwent a physical examination before the start of treatment. After the initial consultation they were followed therapeutically for a further 12 months. Half of the patients treated homeopathically also received an additional conventional therapy. After six months of homeopathic treatment the adults reported a 40% reduction in their typical complaints compared with only a 25% improvement after conventional therapy. In both groups these results persisted for at least six months. At the same time the homeopathy patients showed a substantially greater increase in quality of life.
The children in both groups showed more than a 50% improvement in their complaints after six months of treatment. After 12 months the improvement had persisted in the children treated homeopathically, whereas it had declined somewhat in the conventionally treated group.

The total costs including doctor visits, medical and other therapies, hospital stays and lost work time could be covered by the German health system. The costs for homeopathic and conventional therapy were roughly the same. An adult in this study incurred average illness costs of € 2,155 with homeopathic treatment, while a conventionally treated patient incurred € 2,013.

The homeopathic treatment of children cost an average of € 1,471 over the same period, while conventional therapy cost € 786.
Dr Witt emphasised, however, that this cost difference was due to a small number of children in the homeopathy group having hospital stays, which led to the high average cost. In fact, homeopathic treatment did not lead to increased costs for most of the children compared with conventional therapy.

The results show that the use of homeopathy in the treatment of chronically ill patients in everyday practice may not necessarily reduce costs, but it is cost‑effective.

Comment

The great advantage of Dr Witt’s comparative study is the 12‑month continuous follow‑up of patients from the first doctor visit. This allows for thorough investigation and reliable results. It is regrettable, however, that different conditions were mixed in a single study analysis.

From a homeopathic standpoint such an approach may still seem acceptable, since homeopathy is aimed at treating the whole person rather than single diseases. For conventional therapy, however, this approach is problematic. It also seems inappropriate from an economic perspective, because the economic aspect can vary considerably between different diseases. Thus the question arises whether the overall result is transferable to the various disease‑specific subgroups.

The study results should not be interpreted exclusively as proof of the efficacy of homeopathic medicines.
The study was rather aimed at a comprehensive treatment concept consisting of various procedures beyond the mere prescription of medicines. For this reason conventional procedures were also permitted in the homeopathy group. In this way Dr Witt’s study provides a realistic picture of what can be expected when a chronically ill patient is treated primarily with homeopathy. That is not a weakness but a strength of this study.
The study results are of great importance for decision‑makers in the medical sector, particularly as they concern conditions that are a major cost factor for the healthcare system.

However, it is highly questionable whether the results of the German study are transferable to other European countries, since all cost figures such as medication costs, doctor and hospital costs etc. relate to the German health system. They may differ greatly in other countries.

Sources:
Dipl.Stat.Rainer Lüdtke, Karl & Veronica Carstens‐Stiftung, Essen, Deutschland (Autor) 
Professor Dr. Harald Walach, University of Northampton, England (scientific advisory board)  
Dr. Karen Pilkington, University of Westminster, England (scientific advisory board) 
Federal health reporting: www.gbe‐bund.de among others

Original article: Better health at little extra cost