|
A STUDY ON THE PROPHYLACTIC EFFICACY OF HOMOEOPATHIC
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE AGAINST CHIKUNGUNYA FEVER
Dr. R.
Rejikumar, Dr. R. S. Dinesh etal
Abstract
Homoeopathy has established its supremacy in the control of infectious
viral diseases. The widespread acclaim in this regard is now supported
by this study. The study was conducted in the Chikungunya fever hit
areas of Kerala. The genus epidemicus was selected after detailed
analysis of the first cases of Chikungunya. This preventive medicine
was widely distributed in the disease prevalent areas. A survey was
conducted for the evaluation of prophylactic efficacy. The study
showed a very high significant effect of Homoeopathic medicine in the
prevention of Chikungunya fever.
Key words : Homoeopathy, Prophylaxis, Genus Epidemicus,
Chikungunya fever
Introduction
Homeopathic prophylaxis had its beginnings with the father of
homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755 – 1842). During a 1799 scarlet
fever outbreak in Germany, Dr. Hahnemann observed that three children
in a family contracted the disease, but the fourth remained
unaffected. The fourth had been treated with homeopathic Belladonna
for an unrelated joint problem. Dr. Hahnemann reasoned that perhaps
the dose of Belladonna had protected the child from scarlet fever as
well as treated the joint affliction. Soon afterward, he was able to
test his theory when, in another of his patient’s families, three
children in a family of eight contracted scarlet fever. Hahnemann
administered homeopathic Belladonna to the remaining un-afflicted
five, and all five remained symptom free. Hahnemann continued using
Belladonna during this epidemic, and soon conventional physicians took
note and began using the same protocol. Of 10 allopathic physicians
who were reporting their results with Belladonna, 1,646 children were
prophylactically treated and then exposed to scarlet fever, but only
123 children (7.4%) developed symptoms (during the same time, disease
from exposure ran as high as 90%). Hahnemann subsequently detailed his
success and prophylactic recommendations in an 1801 booklet called
Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever.
In Kerala, there has been periodic outbreaks of epidemics, viz.
Japanese Encephalitis, Weil’s disease, Cholera, Chickenpox, Viral
Conjunctivitis and Dengue fever. The latest turn was that of
Chikungunya fever.
Chikungunya is a relatively rare form of viral fever caused by an
alphavirus that is spread by mosquito bites from the Aedes aegypti
mosquito, though recent research by the Pasteur Institute in Paris
claims the virus has suffered a mutation that enables it to be
transmitted by Aedes Albopictus (Tiger mosquito). The name is derived
from the Makonde word meaning "that which bends up" in reference to
the stooped posture developed as a result of the arthritic symptoms of
the disease. The disease was first described by Marion Robinson and
W.H.R. Lumsden in 1955, following an outbreak on the Makonde Plateau,
along the border between Tanganyika and Mozambique, in 1952.
Chikungunya is closely related to O'nyong'nyong virus.
Chikungunya is not considered to be fatal. However, in 2005-2006, 200
deaths have been associated with chikungunya on Réunion island and a
widespread outbreak in Kerala.
The symptoms of
Chikungunya (also called as Chicken Guinea) include fever which can
reach 39°C, (102.2 °F) a petechial or maculopapular rash usually
involving the limbs and trunk, and arthralgia or arthritis affecting
multiple joints which can be debilitating. There can also be headache,
conjunctival infection and slight photophobia. In the present epidemic
in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India, high fever and crippling
joint pain is the prevalent complaint. Fever typically lasts for two
days and abruptly comes down, however joint pain, intense headache,
insomnia and an extreme degree of prostration lasts for a variable
period, usually for about 5 to 7 days.
Dermatological
manifestations observed in a recent outbreak of Chikungunya fever
in Southern India includes the following:
1. Maculopapular rash
2. Nasal blotchy erythema
3. Freckle-like pigmentation over centro-facial area
4. Flagellate pigmentation on face and extremities
5. Lichenoid eruption and hyperpigmentation in photodistributed areas
6. Multiple aphthous-like ulcers over scrotum, crural areas and axilla.
7. Lympoedema in acral distribution (bilateral /unilateral)
8. Multiple ecchymotic spots (Children)
9. Vesiculobullous lesions (infants)
10. Subungual hemorrhage
Aims & Objectives
1. To assess the efficacy of Homoeopathic medicine in the prevention
of Chikungunya.
2. To determine the magnitude of incidence, clinical features,
mortality , social & economic impact of the Chikungunya epidemic.
Materials & Methods
After detailed analysis of Chikungunya cases in Neyyattinkara &
Vizhinjam, the Genus epidemicus was selected to be Eupatorium
perfoliatum. The 200th centesimal potency of this medicine was given
in 15 doses (3 doses daily for 5 consecutive days). The distribution
was done through various agencies, NGOs, FRAT etc. The details of
distribution were recorded for the feedback study. The survey form for
feedback study was prepared in Malayalam (Annexure-2A & 2B). The
efficacy survey was conducted in the period of 20th – 30th November
2006 in the epidemic hit areas of Vizhinjam, Valiathura, Pothencode,
Manacaud & Kamaleswaram, were preventive medicines were also
distributed.
Survey Details
The field survey team comprised of 36 students of III BHMS course
headed by the survey supervisor, Dr. Sheela A. S (Head of the Dept. of
community Medicine). The survey data entry team comprised of 52 Post
Graduate students in the various departments. (Annexure-3). The
Computerised data entry team comprised of 5 Post Graduate students.
(Annexure-4). The Data analysis was done by subject experts.
Results & Discussion
Total persons surveyed : 2000
Excluded cases : 376
Cases included : 1624
Treatment Group
Total no. of persons who have taken Homoeopathic Preventive Medicine :
1061
Total no. of persons who were affected with fever after the medicine :
189
No. of persons in which the preventive was effective : 872
% Efficacy : 82.19 %
Control Group
Total no. of persons who haven’t taken Homoeopathic Preventive
Medicine : 563
Total no. of persons who were affected with fever : 413
No. of persons protected naturally ( ie, without medicine) : 150
% of cases protected naturally ( ie, without medicine) : 26.64 %
Statistical Analysis ( see Annexure – 1)
|
|
Fever affected |
Fever not affected |
|
Medicine given |
189 |
872 |
|
Medicine not given |
413 |
150 |
Chi
square test value = 486.44
P value < 0.0001
The study is highly significant.
Conclusion
The Homoeopathic preventive medicine distributed for Chikungunya
epidemic was highly effective.
ANNEXURE – 1
BIOSTATISTICS REPORT & ANALYSIS
I do hereby certify that the study was carried out by
the Post Graduate Scholars of Government Homoeopathic Medical College,
Thiruvananthapuram under my guidance based on standard research
protocol and the result is showing very high significance pointing the
efficacy of Homoeopathic preventive medicine in preventing Chikungunya
Fever.
(Sd/-)
Dr. S. Sajith Kumar M. D
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Community Medicine
Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram
ANNEXURE – 2A
SURVEY FORM FOR FEEDBACK STUDY (Malayalam Version)
ANNEXURE – 2B
SURVEY FORM FOR FEEDBACK STUDY (English version)
ANNEXURE – 3
SURVEY DATA ENTRY TEAM
|
Sl. No |
Name of PG Scholar |
Dept |
Survey Forms |
Remarks |
|
1 |
Dr.
Anisha P. J |
MM |
101-20, 1001-1020 |
|
|
2 |
Dr.
Anuji . A. John |
Ph |
21-40,1021-1040 |
|
|
3 |
Dr.
Arun Raj |
OM |
41-60, 1041-1060 |
|
|
4 |
Dr.
Asha R |
Ph |
61-80, 1061-1080 |
|
|
5 |
Dr.
Ashamol K. N |
Ph |
81-100,1081-1100 |
|
|
6 |
Dr.
BabySini |
CR |
101-120,1101-1120 |
|
|
7 |
Dr.
Baiju M.S |
OM |
121-140,1121-1140 |
|
|
8 |
Dr.
Beena Abraham |
OM |
141-160,1141-1160 |
|
|
9 |
Dr.
Deepa A. S |
OM |
161-180,1161-1180 |
|
|
10 |
Dr.
Deepa S.S |
OM |
181-200,1181-1200 |
|
|
11 |
Dr.
Dileep Chandran |
MM |
201-220,1201-1220 |
|
|
12 |
Dr.
Femina |
MM |
221-240,1221-1240 |
|
|
13 |
Dr.
Gopu Sankar |
OM |
241-260,1241-1260 |
|
|
14 |
Dr.
Jayanthi.N.K |
Ph |
261-280,1261-1280 |
|
|
15 |
Dr.
Joby.J |
OM |
281-300,1281-1300 |
|
|
16 |
Dr.
Jyothisai |
MM |
301-320,1301-1320 |
|
|
17 |
Dr.
Kavitha V. S |
OM |
321-340,1321-1340 |
|
|
18 |
Dr.
Lali I.S |
PM |
341-360,1341-1360 |
|
|
19 |
Dr.
Lekshmi V.R |
OM |
361-380,1361-1380 |
|
|
20 |
Dr.
Lekshmipriya T |
PM |
381-400,1381-1400 |
|
|
21 |
Dr.
Lima M. L |
PM |
401-420,1401-1420 |
|
|
22 |
Dr.
Manju G. S |
Ph |
421-440,1421-1440 |
|
|
23 |
Dr.
Manju Rani. M |
OM |
441-460,1441-1460 |
|
|
24 |
Dr.
Namitha K.R |
CR |
461-480,1461-1480 |
|
|
25 |
Dr.
Nebu P Mathew |
CR |
481-500,1481-1500 |
|
|
26 |
Dr.
Nisha A. N |
Ph |
501-520,1501-1520 |
|
|
27 |
Dr.
Padma Suganya |
Ph |
521-540,1521-1540 |
|
|
28 |
Dr.
Pradeep Kumar K |
PM |
541-560,1541-1560 |
|
|
29 |
Dr.
Preeta Nair |
CR |
561-580,1561-1580 |
|
|
30 |
Dr.
Ranjini. C |
MM |
581-600,1581-1600 |
|
|
31 |
Dr.
Rejikumar.R |
OM |
601-620,1601-1620 |
|
|
32 |
Dr.
Sajeev.V |
PM |
621-640,1621-1640 |
|
|
33 |
Dr.
Saleena |
PM |
641-660,1641-1660 |
|
|
34 |
Dr.
Saritha Kolarath |
MM |
661-680,1661-1680 |
|
|
Sl. No |
Name of PG Scholar |
Dept |
Survey Forms |
Remarks |
|
35 |
Dr.
Sedhy P Issac |
MM |
681-700,1681-1700 |
|
|
36 |
Dr.
Seema Murali |
CR |
701-720,1701-1720 |
|
|
37 |
Dr.
Simi C.S |
CR |
721-740,1721-1740 |
|
|
38 |
Dr.
Simi Sarang |
CR |
741-760,1741-1760 |
|
|
39 |
Dr.
Sindhu Venugopal |
Ph |
761-780,1761-1780 |
|
|
40 |
Dr.
Smitha K Mohan |
PM |
781-800,1781-1800 |
|
|
41 |
Dr.
Smitha M Nair |
MM |
801-820,1801-1820 |
|
|
42 |
Dr.
Smitha P.S |
CR |
821-840,1821-1840 |
|
|
43 |
Dr.
Smitha R.S |
MM |
841-860,1841-1860 |
|
|
44 |
Dr.
Sophy.R.Das |
PM |
861-880,1861-1880 |
|
|
45 |
Dr.
Sreekumar |
CR |
881-900,1881-1900 |
|
|
46 |
Dr.
Sreerekha |
PM |
901-920,1901,1920 |
|
|
47 |
Dr.
Thanka R |
OM |
921-940,1921-1940 |
|
|
48 |
Dr.
Thrushala R.J |
Ph |
941-960,1941-1960 |
|
|
49 |
Dr.
Vineetha |
CR |
961-980,1961-1980 |
|
|
50 |
Dr.
Usha |
CR |
981-1000,1981-2000 |
|
ANNEXURE – 4
COMPUTERISED DATA ENTRY TEAM
Sl. No Name of PG Scholar Dept
1 Dr. Rejikumar.R OM
2 Dr. Narayana Prasad CR
3 Dr. Dinesh R.S MM
4 Dr. Mridula Gopinathan PM
5 Dr. Ariharan.S Ph
ANNEXURE – 4
COMPUTERISED DATA ANALYSIS TEAM
1. Dr. Sajith Kumar MD
Dept. of Community Medicine,
Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram
2. Dr. R. S Dinesh MD(hom)
State Chairman, Indian Homoeopathic Research Centre
3. Dr. R. Rejikumar MD(hom)
State Secretary, Indian Homoeopathic Medical Association
ANNEXURE – 6
BASIC DATA ANALYSIS (BDA) SHEET
|
No |
Date |
Locality |
Name |
Age Group (in
years) |
Sex |
|
|
|
|
|
< 1 |
1 - 12 |
13 - 40 |
> 40 |
|
|
801 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
surendran |
|
|
|
56 |
m |
|
802 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
sujith |
|
|
24 |
|
m |
|
803 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
meena |
|
|
|
44 |
f |
|
804 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
geetha |
|
|
39 |
|
f |
|
805 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
rakesh krishnan |
|
|
19 |
|
m |
|
806 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
rajamma |
|
|
|
62 |
f |
|
807 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
molly |
|
|
28 |
|
f |
|
808 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
swarnamma |
|
|
|
70 |
f |
|
809 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
visakh |
|
8 |
|
|
c |
|
810 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
sudheendran |
|
|
|
42 |
m |
|
811 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
shruthi |
|
|
12 |
|
c |
|
812 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
saraswathy |
|
|
|
82 |
f |
|
813 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
jinadev |
|
|
22 |
|
f |
|
814 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
hema |
|
|
30 |
|
f |
|
815 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
alby |
|
|
|
40 |
m |
|
816 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
manikandan nair |
|
|
|
41 |
m |
|
817 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
asha |
|
|
32 |
|
f |
|
818 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
sasikala |
|
|
|
40 |
f |
|
819 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
madhavan |
|
|
|
68 |
m |
|
820 |
28/11 |
pothencode |
swarnamma |
|
|
|
56 |
f |
APPENDIX
Notations used in the Survey Data Analysis Sheet (see ANNEXURE – 4)
No è
Survey form serial number
1a èAnswer
to the 1st question is YES (see ANNEXURE – 1B )
1b è
Answer to the 1st question is NO
(Similarly a number followed by an alphabet is used respectively to
denote the question number and answer choice to enter the survey data
into analysis sheet)
Answer to the 4th question is 4th answer choice (Other)
Answer to the 5th question is 1st answer choice (Yes)
ie, the person was affected with fever
0 indicates that this person belongs to control group
(ie he/she has not taken homœopathic preventive medicine)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1. Dr. V. M. Janakikutty, Principal & Controlling Officer,Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram
2. Dr. S. Saveesh Kumar, Superintendent
Government Homoeopathic Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
3. Dr. A. S. Sheela, Head of the Dept., Dept. of Community Medicine,Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram
4. Dr. S. Sajith Kumar, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Community Medicine
Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram
5. Dr. M. Premachandran, State President, IHMA
6. Dr. K. Narayana Pai, State General Secretary, IHMA
|
