Complementary and alternative medicine in asthma--safety, effectiveness and costs.

M. Brutsche

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2002.10069

2002-06-29

Swiss Medical Weekly

Abstract:The most relevant aspect of safety is mortality. In spite of huge efforts it was not possible to substantially reduce the number of asthma deaths over the last decades. In Switzerland (7 million inhabitants) there are still 200 to 250 recorded asthma deaths per year [3], a number which was raising till the late 80s of the last century. Thus, treatments which are able to reduce mortality due to asthma are needed. To date, the only treatment which has proven to reduce asthma mortality is inhaled corticosteroids [4, 5]. This has been related to their potent anti-inflammatory activity. In a cohort study involving 30,569 asthmatics with 77 asthma deaths occurring during the observation period, patients not inhaling corticosteroids in the last 3 months had a 4.6-fold higher risk of dying from asthma than patients who did inhale them [5]. How does CAM compare in terms of safety? – There is no study with enough statistical power to answer this question in terms of mortality. In a representative survey of 601 asthmatics Blanc et al. [6] investigated the frequency of emergency visits and hospitalisations due to asthma. Adjusting for demographic and illness covariates, the use of herbal medicines (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence limits 1.1 to 5.6) was associated with increased risk for asthma hospitalisation within the last 12 months. It can be speculated that this could be related to a lack of control of airway inflammation predisposing to asthma exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. Thus, the data about safety of CAM are neither sufficient nor supportive. Another aspect of safety is the occurrence of side effects. Most side effects related to CAM are negligible and often comparable to placebo. Notable side effects in relation to CAM include pneumothorax after chest acupuncture and various types of intoxication after specific herbal applications. The main difference with classical medicine is the fact that patients often assume that CAM has no side effects and a respective information is not standard. The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is very popular. According to Blanc et al. [1] and Ernst et al. [2] 59% (United Kingdom) and 41% (United States of America) of patients with asthma or rhinosinusitis report using CAM. It has been adopted by the public health systems of many countries as a remunerated and accepted alternative to standard of care. But being popular should not be equal to an unreflected legitimation. It is important to apply safe, efficient and cost-effective treatments to patients, and the same rules should apply for all different treatment modalities including CAM. 329 Editorial S W I S S M E D W K LY 2 0 0 2 ; 1 3 2 : 3 2 9 – 3 3 1 · w w w. s m w. c h