Comparing homoeopathic with conventional treatment in children with eczema

Abstract

Objectives To examine the influence of homoeopathic versus conventional treatment, over a period of 1 year, in children with eczema. Methods In this prospective multi-centre cohort study, children with eczema aged 1–16 years were recruited from primary care practices in Germany. They received either conventional or homoeopathic treatment. Outcome measures were self/parents assessed eczema symptoms by numerical rating scales (0=none; 10=worst symptoms) as well as quality of life at 0, 6 and 12 months. Results We included a total of 118 children: 54 from homoeopathic (mean age±S.D. was 5.1±3.3 years; 56% boys) and 64 from conventional practices (6.2±3.8 years; 61% boys). Eczema symptoms improved from 0 to 12 months for both treatment options. There was no significant difference between the homoeopathic group (3.5–2.5, for 0–12 months) versus the conventional treatment group (3.4–2.1), after adjustment for potential confounders ( p =0.447). Furthermore, disease-related quality of life improved in both groups similarly. In the subgroup of children aged 8–16 years, general quality of life was significantly better for children with conventional compared to those with homoeopathic treatment ( p =0.030). Conclusions This observational study is the first long-term prospective investigation to compare homoeopathic and conventional treatment of eczema in children. Over a period of 1 year, both therapy groups improved similarly regarding patient-oriented outcomes. To resolve current uncertainties surrounding both homoeopathic and conventional treatment for children with eczema, further studies are needed including assessments by raters, who are blinded to treatment. A randomized trial could be designed in a way where both groups of patients—i.e. those seeking conventional and those seeking homoeopathic care—are randomized to either verum or placebo treatment within their preferred type of care.