Efficacy of Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in the Treatment of Menopausal Syndrome: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Objectives: Menopausal symptoms are systemic symptoms that are associated with estrogen deficiency after menopause. Although widely practiced, homeopathy remains under-researched in menopausal syndrome in terms of quality evidence, especially in randomized trials. The efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) was evaluated in this trial against placebos in the treatment of the menopausal syndrome.Design: Double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial.Setting: Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Howrah, West Bengal, India.Subjects: Sixty women with menopausal syndrome.Interventions: Group 1 (n = 30; IHMs plus concomitant care; verum) versus group 2 (n = 30; placebos plus concomitant care; control).Outcome measures: Primary-the Greene climacteric scale (GCS) total score and menopause rating scale (MRS) total score, and secondary-the Utian quality of life (UQOL) total score; all of them were measured at baseline and every month up to 3 months.Results: Intention-to-treat sample (n = 60) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated-measure analysis of variance, primarily taking into account all the estimates measured at monthly intervals, and secondarily, by unpaired t tests comparing the estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at p < 0.025 two-tailed. Between-group differences were nonsignificant statistically-GCS total score (F-1,F- 58 = 1.372, p = 0.246), MRS total score (F-1,F- 58 = 0.720, p = 0.4), and UQOL total scores (F-1,F- 58 = 2.903, p = 0.094). Some of the subscales preferred IHMs significantly against placebos-for example, MRS somatic subscale (F-1,F- 56 = 0.466, p < 0.001), UQOL occupational subscale (F-1,F- 58 = 4.865, p = 0.031), and UQOL health subscale (F-1,F- 58 = 4.971, p = 0.030). Sulfur and Sepia succus were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either group.Conclusions: Although the primary analysis failed to demonstrate clearly that the treatment was effective beyond placebo, some significant benefits of IHMs over placebo could still be detected in some of the subscales in the secondary analysis.