Download PDF
Aktuelle Rheumatologie
DOI: 10.1055/a-2277-9901
Übersichtsarbeit

Homöopathie: therapeutische Wirksamkeit und Anwendung in der klinischen Praxis

Homeopathy: Therapeutic Efficacy and Application in Clinical Practice
Olga Seifert
1   Rheumatologie, Uniklinik Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
2   Department für Innere Medizin, Neurologie und Dermatologie, Sektion Rheumatologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
,
Christoph Baerwald
2   Department für Innere Medizin, Neurologie und Dermatologie, Sektion Rheumatologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Homöopathie, die mit kleinen Dosen verschiedener Substanzen Selbstregulations- und Selbstheilungsprozesse anregen soll, ist seit dem 19. Jahrhundert populär. Heutzutage liegt die weltweite Prävalenz aller Anwendungen der Homöopathie im Bereich von 0,2–9,8% (bevölkerungsbezogene Erhebungen zur Anwendung komplementärer Therapien). In diesem Review werden Metaanalysen mit gepoolten Daten aus Placebo kontrollierten klinischen Studien zur Homöopathie und einige Diskussionsartikel zur klinischen Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie analysiert. Die Daten sowohl aus randomisierten, kontrollierten Studien als auch aus experimentellen Untersuchungen zeigen Wirkungen homöopathischer Mittel, die der modernen rationalen Grundlage der Medizin widersprechen. Systematische Übersichten von Placebo kontrollierten Studien zur Homöopathie berichteten, dass ihre Wirkungen mehr als Placebo zu sein scheinen. Es fehlt an schlüssigen Beweisen für die Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie bei den meisten Erkrankungen sowie bei rheumatischen Erkrankungen. Die Homöopathie hat es bisher nicht vermocht, ihren Stellenwert durch die Anwendung evidenzbasierter Prinzipien zu demonstrieren. Zukünftige Studien sollten sich auf die Anwendung der Homöopathie bei bestimmten Krankheiten oder Krankheitsgruppen konzentrieren, anstatt Daten aus allen klinischen Studien erneut zu analysieren.

Abstract

Homeopathy, which uses small doses of various substances to stimulate autoregulatory and self-healing processes, became popular in the 19th century. Today, the worldwide prevalence of all use of homeopathy is within the range of 0.2–9.8% (population-based surveys on the use of complementary therapies). In this review, meta-analyses including pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and some articles dealing with the clinical efficacy of homeopathy were analysed. Some data from both randomised, controlled trials and laboratory research demonstrate effects from homeopathic remedies that contradict the contemporary rational basis of medicine. Systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that homeopathy seems to achieve greater effects than placebo. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions, including rheumatic diseases. To date, homeopathy has failed to demonstrate its value through the application of evidence-based principles. Future studies should focus on utilising scientific methods to study homeopathy in specific diseases or groups of diseases instead of re-analysing pooled data from clinical trials.

Schlüsselwörter

Homöopathie - Homöopathische Arzneimittel - Häufigkeit - Evidenz - rheumatische Erkrankungen

Key words

rheumatic diseases - homeopathic medicines - prevalence - systematic review - homeopathyArtikel online veröffentlicht 2024


Publication History

Article published online:
07 May 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Lyn Lee E, Richards N, Harrison J. et al. Prevalence of Use of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the General Population: A Systematic Review of National Studies Published from 2010 to 2019. Drug Saf 2022; 45: 713-735
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Relton C, Cooper K, Viksveen P. et al. Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: a systematic review. Homeopathy 2017; 106: 69-78
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dossett ML, Gloria Y, Yeh GY. Homeopathy Use in the United States and Implications for Public Health: A Review. Homeopathy 2018; 107: 3-9
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Von Ammon K, Frei-Erb M, Cardini F. et al. Complementary and alternative medicine provision in Europe – first results approaching reality in an unclear field of practices. Forsch Komplementmed 2012; 19: 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Brockow T, Franke A, Resch KL.. et al. Is homeopathy more than a placebo?. Praxis (Bern 1994) 1998; 87: 1687-1694
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Gebhardt KH. Advances in homeopathy. Internist (Berl) 1999; 40: 1266-1270
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Fisher P, Scott DL. A randomized controlled trial of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2001; 40: 1052-1055
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Manchanda RK, Gupta M, Gupta A. et al. The Clinical and Biological Effects of Homeopathically Prepared Signaling Molecules: A Scoping Review. Homeopathy 2022; 111: 10-21
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Viksveen P, Dymitr Z, Simoens S. Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review. Eur J Health Econ 2014; 15: 157-174
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Ullman D. An Analysis of Four Government-Funded Reviews of Research on Homeopathic Medicine. Cureus. 2021; 13: e15899
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview. Mol Cell Biochem 2003; 253: 339-435
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Ücker A, Baumgartner S, Sokol A. et al. Systematic Review of Plant-Based Homeopathic Basic Research: An Update. Homeopathy. 2018; 107: 115-129
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Ücker A, Baumgartner S, Martin D. et al. Critical Evaluation of Specific Efficacy of Preparations Produced According to European Pharmacopeia Monograph 2371. Biomedicines 2022; 10: 552
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Bonamin LV, Cardoso TN, de Carvalho AC. et al. The use of animal models in homeopathic research – a review of 2010-2014 PubMed indexed papers. Homeopathy 2015; 104: 283-291
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Vickers AJ. Independent replication of pre-clinical research in homeopathy: a systematic review. Forsch Komplementarmed 1999; 6: 311-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Antonelli M, Davide Donelli D. Reinterpreting homoeopathy in the light of placebo effects to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care: A systematic review. Health Soc Care Community 2019; 27: 824-847
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Rughiniş C, Ciocănel A, Vasile S. Homeopathy as Boundary Object and Distributed Therapeutic Agency. A Discussion on the Homeopathic Placebo Response. Am J Ther 2018; 25: e447-e452
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Nuhn T, Lüdtke R, Geraedts M. Placebo effect sizes in homeopathic compared to conventional drugs – a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 76-82
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L. et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726-732
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G. et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834-843
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Mathie RT, Ramparsad N, Legg LA. et al. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2017; 6: 63
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Jonas WB, Linde K, Ramirez G. Homeopathy and rheumatic disease. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2000; 26: 117-123 x
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Gibson RG, Gibson SL, Macneill AD. et al. Salicylates and homoeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary observations. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1978; 6: 391-395
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Gibson RG, Gibson SL, Macneill AD. et al. Homoeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1980; 9: 453-459
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Brien S, Lachance L, Prescott P. et al. Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011; 50: 1070-1082
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Andrade LE, Ferraz MB, Atra E. et al. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1991; 20: 204-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Schirmer KP, Fritz M, Jackel WH. Effectiveness of Formica rufa and autologous blood injection in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a double-blind randomized study. Z Rheumatol 2000; 59: 321-329
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Perry R, Terry R, Ernst E. A systematic review of homoeopathy for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Clin Rheumatol 2010; 29: 457-464
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Holdcraft LC, Assefi N, Buchwald D. Complementary and alternative medicine in fibromyalgia and related syndromes. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2003; 17: 667-683
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Baronowsky J, Klose P, Musial F. et al. Qualitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials on complementary and alternative medicine treatments in fibromyalgia. Rheumatol Int 2009; 30: 1-21
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E. et al. Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of fibromyalgia: a systematic review. Rheumatology 2010; 49: 1063-1068
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Terhorst L, Schneider M. Complementary and alternative medicine in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2012. 12 (Suppl 1). 276
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Langhorst J, Heldmann P, Henningsen P. et al. Complementary and alternative procedures for fibromyalgia syndrome : Updated guidelines 2017 and overview of systematic review articles. Schmerz 2017; 31: 289-295
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Perry R, Leach V, Davies P. et al. An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for fibromyalgia using both AMSTAR and ROBIS as quality assessment tools. Syst Rev 2017; 6: 97
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Awmf (2017) Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft. Definition, Pathophysiologie, Diagnostik und Therapie des Fibromyalgiesyndroms. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/145-004.html
    PubMed
  • 36 Moris M, Pellow J, Elizabeth Margaret Solomon EM. et al. Physiotherapy and a Homeopathic Complex for Chronic Low-back Pain Due to Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Study. Altern Ther Health Med 2016; 22: 48-56
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 van Haseln RA, Fisher PA. A randomized controlled trial comparing topical piroxicam gel with a homeopathic gel in osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000; 39: 714-719
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Long L, Ernst E. Homeopathic remedies for the treatment of osteoarthritis 2001; 90: 37-43
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/033-004l_S2k_Gonarthrose_2018-01_1-verlaengert_01.pdf
    PubMed
  • 40 Koley M, Saha S, Ghosh S. A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled feasibility study evaluating individualized homeopathy in managing pain of knee osteoarthritis. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med 2015; 20: 186-191
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Posadzki P, Alotaibi A, Ernst E. Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series. Int J Clin Pract 2012; 66: 1178-1188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Ernst E. Risk-free homeopathy?. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1996; 126: 1677-1679
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Grabia S, Ernst E. E Homeopathic aggravations: a systematic review of randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 92-98
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Dantas F, Rampes H. Do homeopathic medicines provoke adverse effects? A systematic review. Br Homeopath J 2000; 89: S35-S38
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Şenel E. Evolution of homeopathy: A scientometric analysis of global homeopathy literature between 1975 and 2017. Complement. Ther Clin Pract 2019; 34: 165-173
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Hock N, Juckel G. G Homeopathy for psychiatric patients-for and against. Nervenarzt 2018; 89: 1014-1019
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Grams N, Endruscheit U. Media and homeopathy: Reporting between proximity to lobbyism and distance from science. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2021; 64: 62-69
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Marderosian AH. Understanding homeopathy. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1996; NS36: 317-321
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Keyßer G, Michalsen A, Reuß-Borst M. et al. Recommendations of the committee on complementary medicine and nutrition in ayurvedic medicine, homeopathy, nutrition and Mediterranean diet. Z Rheumatol 2023;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar