Abstract:
Objectives: This study was undertaken to compare the effects of IH with standard allopathic (SA) treatment. Methods: A randomized
controlled, open‑label, comparative trial, was conducted, in which alcohol dependents were screened verbally using the CAGE scale. The
participants 80 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized either IH (n=40) or SA (n=40) and treated cum followed up for 12
months. The primary outcome was more than 50% reduction in the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire [SADQ] rating scale
at 12th month. Data analysis was done for both intention‑to‑treat (ITT) and per‑protocol (PP) populations. Results: ITT analysis reflected
80% (n = 32) of the patients in IH and 37.5% (n = 15) of the patients in the SA responding to CI before 2.4 treatment with absolute difference
was 42.5% (42.5 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.0, 61.6]) and estimated effect: 6.6 (95% C.I: 2.4, 18.2), P = 0.0002. A significant difference
favoring IH was also observed in three out of four domains of WHO QOL-BREF. Statistically significant difference was found in the number
of drinking days (median difference: −24.00; CI: −39.0–−8.0; P = 0.001) and number of drinks per drinking day (median difference: −6.3 [95%
CI: −11.3–−1.9]; P = 0.004), favoring IH. The results showed a similar trend in PP analysis. Medicines found useful were Sulphur, Lycopodium
clavatum, Arsenicum album, Nux vomica, Phosphorus, and Lachesis. Conclusion: The results conclude that IH is not inferior to SA in the
management of AD patients. More rigorous studies with large sample size are however desirable.
