Open-label pilot study reveals improved lung function and exercise capacity in post-COVID patients receiving adjuvant homeopathy, suggesting potential utility alongside standard care.
Persistent respiratory symptoms are frequently reported following recovery from COVID-19 infection and may affect pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life. While supportive therapies are commonly used in clinical practice, evidence regarding integrative approaches such as homeopathy as an adjunct to conventional management remains limited. To evaluate clinical outcomes of individualized homeopathic treatment administered as an adjunct to conventional care in patients experiencing respiratory sequelae following COVID-19 infection. A prospective, single-arm, open-label pilot clinical study was conducted from August 2021 to September 2022 at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. Participants aged ≥18 years with persistent respiratory symptoms following COVID-19 infection were recruited. Individualized homeopathic medicines were prescribed as an adjunct to standard conventional management. Clinical outcomes included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for respiratory symptoms, Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale (mMRC), and health-related quality of life assessed using EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L). Assessments were conducted at baseline and after 3 months of follow-up. Of 162 individuals screened, 62 participants were enrolled and 50 completed the study analyses demonstrated improvement in forced vital capacity (mean difference: 0.21 ± 0.05) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD; mean difference: 33.64 ± 9.52 m) and symptom scores assessed using NRS, mMRC, and the EQ-5D-5L domains. Improvements observed in pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and symptom scores should be interpreted cautiously due to the single-arm pilot design. Larger randomized controlled trials with comparator groups are required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: