CONTEXT: The incidence of tendon injuries and tendinopathy has risen substantially in the past decades. OBJECTIVE: To assess the noninferiority of therapy based on the homeopathic preparation Traumeel S ointment (Heel GmbH, Baden-Baden, Germany) compared with treatment based on diclofenac 1% gel in patients with tendinopathies of varying etiology. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, observational study. SETTING: Ninety-five homeopathy and conventional medical practices in Germany. PATIENTS: Three hundred fifty-seven patients aged 18 to 93 years with tendinopathy of varying etiology based on excessive tendon load rather than inflammation. INTERVENTIONS: Traumeel S ointment or diclofenac 1% gel for a maximum of 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was measured on a four-degree scale on pain-related variables, on variables related to motility, and on overall treatment outcome. Tolerability was monitored as adverse events. Compliance was assessed by practitioner and patient on a four-degree scale. RESULTS: The patients groups were comparable at baseline. The changes in summary score of all pain-related variables were -5.3 +/- 2.7 (all values means +/- SD) in the Traumeel group and -5.0 +/- 2.7 in the control group. Changes for all motility-related variables were -4.2 +/- 3.8 with Traumeel and -3.7 +/- 3.4 with control therapy. The summary scores for all clinical variables were reduced by -9.5 +/- 5.7 with Traumeel therapy and by -8.7 +/- 5.4 with diclofenac-based treatment. Homeopathic therapy was noninferior to diclofenac therapy on all variables. For motility-related variables, there was a trend toward superiority of Traumeel. Treatments were well tolerated with no treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that Traumeel ointment is an effective alternative to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs therapy for the acute symptomatic treatment of patients with tendinopathy.

OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of eccentric loading exercises (ELE) with prolotherapy injections used singly and in combination for painful Achilles tendinosis.

DESIGN:A single-blinded randomised clinical trial. The primary outcome measure was the VISA-A questionnaire with a minimum clinically important change (MCIC) of 20 points.

SETTING:Five Australian primary care centres.

PARTICIPANTS:43 patients with painful mid-portion Achilles tendinosis commenced and 40 completed treatment protocols.

INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomised to a 12-week program of ELE (n=15), or prolotherapy injections of hypertonic glucose with lignocaine alongside the affected tendon (n=14) or combined treatment (n=14).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:VISA-A, pain, stiffness and limitation of activity scores; treatment costs.

RESULTS:At 12 months, proportions achieving the MCIC for VISA-A were 73% for ELE, 79% for prolotherapy and 86% for combined treatment. Mean (95% CI) increases in VISA-A scores at 12 months were 23.7 (15.6 to 31.9) for ELE, 27.5 (12.8 to 42.2) for prolotherapy and 41.1 (29.3 to 52.9) for combined treatment. At 6 weeks and 12 months, these increases were significantly less for ELE than for combined treatment. Compared with ELE, reductions in stiffness and limitation of activity occurred earlier with prolotherapy and reductions in pain, stiffness and limitation of activity occurred earlier with combined treatment. Combined treatment had the lowest incremental cost per additional responder ($A1539) compared with ELE.

CONCLUSIONS:For Achilles tendinosis, prolotherapy and particularly ELE combined with prolotherapy give more rapid improvements in symptoms than ELE alone but long-term VISA-A scores are similar.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN: 12606000179538.