Efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines in intervening with the progression of pre-hypertension to hypertension: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Souvik Dutta,Subhasish Ganguly,Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee,Priyanka Ghosh,Pallavi Hazra,Aniket Singha Roy,Abdur Rahaman Shaikh,Sk Swaif Ali,Satarupa Sadhukhan,Munmun Koley,Subhranil Saha
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2021.05.007
Abstract:Context: Pre-hypertension remains a significant public health challenge and appropriate intervention is required to stop its progression to hypertension and/or cardiovascular diseases. Objective: To study the effects of individualized homeopathic medicines (IH) against placebo in intervening with the progression of pre-hypertension to hypertension. Design: Double-blind, randomized, two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient departments of D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Patients: Ninety-two patients suffering from pre-hypertension; randomized to receive either IH (n = 46) or identical-looking placebo (n = 46). Interventions: IH or placebo in the mutual context of lifestyle modification (LSM) advices including dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) and brisk exercises. Main outcome measures: Primary - systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP); secondary - Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile version 2.0 (MYMOP-2) scores; all measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Results: After 3 months of intervention, the number of patients having progression from pre-hypertension to hypertension between groups were similar without any significant differences in between (all P>0.05). Reduction in BP and MYMOP-2 scores were non-significantly higher (all P>0.05) in the IH group than placebo with small effect sizes. Lycopodium clavatum, Thuja occidentalis and Natrum muriaticum were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms or serious adverse events were reported from either group. Thus, there was a small, but non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy, which ultimately rendered the trial as inconclusive. [Trial registration: CTRI/2018/10/016,026; UTN: U1111-1221-8251].
What problem does this paper attempt to address?