A Clinical Study to Evaluate the Usefulness of Homoeopathic Medicine in Eczema.

Abstract

Background: Eczema is a group of inflammatory skin conditions commonly associated with itching, erythema, dryness, scaling, discharge and fissuring. Symptoms may fluctuate over time and can affect sleep, daily activities and quality of life. Homoeopathic practice uses an individualised approach in which remedy selection is based on the clinical presentation and the totality of symptoms. However, uncontrolled observations cannot establish whether improvement is caused by a specific treatment effect.

Objective: To describe the clinical outcomes observed after individualised homoeopathic treatment among patients diagnosed with eczema and to examine changes in an Eczema Symptom Score.

Methods: This prospective, observational, single-blind, non-controlled study included 30 patients of both sexes and different age groups attending the outpatient, inpatient and peripheral outpatient services of Bakson Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Greater Noida. Remedies were selected individually after case-taking. Potencies of 30C, 200C and 1M were used according to the treating practitioner’s judgement. Symptom severity was assessed before and after treatment using a six-domain symptom score covering itching, dryness, erythema, scaling, discharge and fissures. A paired t-test was reported for pre- and post-treatment scores.

Results: The source study reported a mean baseline score of 11.34 (SD 2.5) and a post-treatment mean of 2.29 (SD 0.4), with t = 8.72 and p = 0.00034. Of 30 participants, 15 (50.0%) were classified as cured, 3 (10.0%) as markedly improved, 10 (33.3%) as moderately improved, 1 (3.3%) as showing no significant improvement and 1 (3.3%) as showing no change. Contact dermatitis was the most frequently reported clinical type (11/30; 36.7%). Graphites was the most frequently prescribed remedy (4/30).

Conclusion: A substantial pre–post reduction in the study’s symptom score was reported. Because the study had no control group, used a study-specific score, and did not provide sufficient information on treatment duration, blinding procedures, adverse-event monitoring or longer-term follow-up, the findings should be interpreted as descriptive observations rather than proof of efficacy. Controlled studies using validated outcome measures are needed.