{"id":32229,"date":"2024-05-31T15:06:16","date_gmt":"2024-05-31T15:06:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hri-research.org\/?p=32229"},"modified":"2024-11-09T09:24:51","modified_gmt":"2024-11-09T09:24:51","slug":"the-highest-level-of-scientific-evidence-supports-cost-effectiveness-of-homeopathy-a-finding-that-is-unchanged-by-a-recent-paper-by-leemhuis-seifert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hri-research.org\/sv\/2024\/05\/the-highest-level-of-scientific-evidence-supports-cost-effectiveness-of-homeopathy-a-finding-that-is-unchanged-by-a-recent-paper-by-leemhuis-seifert\/","title":{"rendered":"The highest level of scientific evidence supports cost-effectiveness of homeopathy \u2013 a finding that is unchanged by a recent paper by Leemhuis & Seifert"},"content":{"rendered":"

A systematic review<\/a><\/span>\u00a0\u2013 considered the highest level of scientific evidence \u2013 was published in January 2024, providing an overview of cost-effectiveness studies of homeopathy<\/span>1<\/span><\/a><\/sup>. <\/span>In all 21 studies included in this review<\/b>,<\/span>\u00a0homeopathy showed similar or better clinical effectiveness compared to the control groups, with a clear positive trend for cost-effectiveness:<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"
\n*2 of these studies were shown to be cost-effective through incremental cost effectiveness<\/a> analysis.<\/sup><\/p>\n

The quality of the studies was assessed using the CHEC<\/a><\/span>\u00a0list<\/span>, specifically designed for use with economic evaluations. CHEC scores\u00a0ranged from 2 to 16\u00a0(maximum score 19), with a statistically significant increase in study quality over the years (see <\/span>HRI Cost-effectiveness FAQ<\/span><\/a> for further details).<\/span><\/p>\n

Lead author, Prof Thomas Ostermann of Universitat Witten\/Herdecke<\/span>1<\/span> concluded that \u201c<\/span>although the quality of research on homeopathy\u2019s cost-effectiveness has improved over time, and some high-quality studies show that it can be a cost-effective option, there are still many poorly conducted studies which make it difficult to offer a definitive statement<\/span><\/i>.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We therefore read with interest a new paper by Leemhuis & Seifert<\/span>2<\/span><\/a><\/sup> published in March 2024, titled, \u201cPrescriptions of homeopathic remedies at the expense of the German statutory health insurance from 1985 to 2021: scientific, legal and pharmacoeconomic analysis\u201d. However, regrettably, this study fails to meet basic scientific standards for a meaningful economic evaluation and, as such, adds nothing of value to the evidence base on this topic.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The quality of the study cannot be formally assessed using the CHEC-list tool, as it does not sufficiently resemble a true clinical cost effectiveness study<\/span>3<\/span><\/a><\/sup> (only 12 of the 19 checklist items could be assessed, with the study scoring 4\/12 for those items), but the fact that Leemhuis & Seifert is a poorly conducted study is clear.<\/span><\/p>\n

An over-simplified approach was used to track the cost per daily dose of 16 homeopathic medicines prescribed by doctors in outpatient clinics and paid for through the German statutory health insurance (SHI) from 1985 to 2021.\u00a0 Using this crude data they concluded that homeopathy costs \u201c<\/span>have continued to rise over the years<\/span><\/i>\u201d. But the data were not adjusted for inflation or compared to changes in conventional medicine costs over the same time period.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Leemhuis & Seifert also concluded that homeopathy was \u201c<\/span>on average significantly more expensive<\/span><\/i>\u201d than 9 selected alternative conventional medicines. However, <\/span>this claim is based on a subset of data<\/b> monitoring homeopathic medicines during a single year only (2021) <\/b>and is further weakened by the following issues:<\/span><\/p>\n