Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 6, No. 3, 1999
Issue release date: June 1999
Add to my selection Citation Download
Forsch Komplementärmed 1999;6:142–148
(DOI:10.1159/000021239)
Original Article · Originalarbeit

A Randomized Equivalence Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Luffa comp.-Heel Nasal Spray with Cromolyn Sodium Spray in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Weiser M.a · Gegenheimer L.H.b · Klein P.c
aInstitut für Antihomotoxische Medizin und Grundregulationsforschung, Baden-Baden, bReproting and Consulting Services in Clinical Pharmacology, Mannheim, cDatenservice Eva Hoenig GmbH, Rohrbach, Germany Forsch Komplementärmed 1999;6:142–148 (DOI:10.1159/000021239)

Abstract

Summary

Background: The objective of the clinical study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerance of a homeopathic nasal spray in cases of hay fever (seasonal allergic rhinitis) in comparison with the conventional intranasal cromolyn sodium therapy. Patients and Methods: In total, 146 outpatients with symptoms of hay fever were enrolled into the clinical study (randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial) (time of treatment: 42 days). The homeopathic remedy (Luffa comp.-Heel ™ Nasal Spray, dosage: 0.14 ml per application, 4 times per a day / naris) consisted of a fixed combination made up of Luffa operculata, Galphimia glauca, histamine, and sulfur. The main outcome measure of the efficacy was the quality of life as measured by means of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life-Questionnaire (RQLQ). The tolerance of the trial medication was registered by means of global assessment, rhinoscopy, recording of adverse events and with the aid of vital and laboratory parameters. Results:The results of the study demonstrate a quick and lasting effect of the treatment. This effect was independent from the medication applied and produced a nearly complete remission of the hay fever symptoms. The RQLQ global score changed significantly in the course of the treatment, indicating therapeutic equivalence between the two forms of treatment. Adverse systemic effects did not occur. Local adverse events appeared in 3 patients. Conclusions:The study proved that, for the treatment of hay fever, the homeopathic nasal spray is as efficient and well tolerable as the conventional therapy with cromolyn sodium.


 goto top of outline Publication Details

Forschende Komplementärmedizin
Offizielles Organ der Schweizerischen Medizinischen Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie, European Society for Classical Natural Medicine

Vol. 6, No. 3, Year 1999 (Cover Date: June 1999)

Journal Editor: M. Bühring, München, Germany, K. Linde, München, Germany, W. Marktl, Wien Austria, D. Melchart, München, Germany, K.L. Resch, Bad Elster, Germany, R. Saller, Zürich, Switzerland, M. Ullmann, München, Germany
ISSN: 1021–7096 (print), 1421–9999 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/journals/fkm


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.