CAM Therapies (cam + therapy)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Complementary and integrative medical therapies, the FDA, and the NIH: definitions and regulation

DERMATOLOGIC THERAPY, Issue 2 2003
Michael H. Cohen
ABSTRACT: ,,The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) presently defines complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as covering "a broad range of healing philosophies (schools of thought), approaches, and therapies that mainstream Western (conventional) medicine does not commonly use, accept, study, understand, or make available. The research landscape, including NCCAM-funded research, is continually changing and subject to vigorous methodologic and interpretive debates. Part of the impetus for greater research dollars in this arena has been increasing consumer reliance on CAM to dramatically expand. State (not federal) law controls much of CAM practice. However, a significant federal role exists in the regulation of dietary supplements. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates foods, drugs, and cosmetics in interstate commerce. No new "drug" may be introduced into interstate commerce unless proven "safe" and "effective" for its intended use, as determined by FDA regulations. "Foods", however, are subject to different regulatory requirements, and need not go through trials proving safety and efficacy. The growing phenomenon of consumer use of vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other "dietary supplements" challenged the historical divide between drugs and foods. The federal Dietary Supplements Health Education Act (DSHEA) allows manufacturers to distribute dietary supplements without having to prove safety and efficacy, so long as the manufacturers make no claims linking the supplements to a specific disease. State law regulates the use of CAM therapies through a variety of legal rules. Of these, several major areas of concern for clinicians are professional licensure, scope of practice, and malpractice. Regarding licensure, each state has enacted medical licensing that prohibits the unlicensed practice of medicine and thereby criminalizes activity by unlicensed CAM providers who offer health care services to patients. Malpractice is defined as unskillful practice which fails to conform to a standard of care in the profession and results in injury. The definition is no different in CAM than in general medicine; its application to CAM, however, raises novel questions. Courts rely on medical consensus regarding the appropriateness of a given therapy. A framework for assessing potential liability risk involves assessing the medical evidence concerning safety and efficacy, and then aligning clinical decisions with liability concerns. Ultimately research will or will not establish a specific CAM therapy as an important part of the standard of care for the condition in question. Legal rules governing CAM providers and practices are, in many cases, new and evolving. Further, laws vary by state and their application depends on the specific clinical scenario in question. New research is constantly emerging, as are federal and state legislative developments and judicial opinions resulting from litigation. [source]

Patient-based evaluations of primary care for cardiovascular diseases: a comparison between conventional and complementary medicine

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 1 2008
Klazien Matter-Walstra PhD
Abstract Background, Patients with chronic diseases, including cardiovascular conditions, increasingly rely on complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies. Objectives, The Swiss Program for Complementary Medicine Evaluation offers a unique opportunity to analyse cardiovascular patients' satisfaction with CAM and conventional medical (COM) therapies. The treatment choices of doctors certified in conventional as well as complementary therapies also could be studied. Methods, A national observational evaluation on treatment satisfaction of patients consulting COM or CAM doctors. Out of this evaluation project, data related to patients with cardiovascular diseases were specifically analysed for patient satisfaction with treatment and outcome when treated by COM or CAM doctors. Results, Of 199 included doctors (78 COM, 121 CAM) treating cardiovascular patients, COM doctors treated twice as many cardiovascular patients per doctor than CAM doctors. CAM doctors treated less than 1/3 of their cardiovascular patients solely by CAM, while they treated 42% exclusively by COM therapies. Patients seeing a CAM doctor had a significantly longer consultation and were more likely to be highly satisfied with overall treatment outcome and patient-practitioner communication. Moreover, patients seeing a CAM doctor and being treated solely by a CAM therapy more often report ,complete fulfilment of outcome expectation' and ,high overall satisfaction with treatment', although their symptoms less often disappear totally than those of COM therapy-treated patients. Conclusion, CAM therapies are not the first treatment choice for cardiovascular diseases. However, even though CAM doctors preferentially apply COM therapies, cardiovascular patients treated by CAM doctors are more likely to be satisfied with the overall treatment outcome, possibly because of the longer and better patient,practitioner interaction. [source]

The use and perceived benefit of complementary and alternative medicine among Californians with cancer

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, Issue 1 2008
Michael S. Goldstein
Abstract Population-based data on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer sufferers is lacking. In a telephone survey representative of California households (response rate = 68.9%, N = 1845) those who reported a diagnosis of cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) were asked about CAM use. CAM use is substantial, although with few exceptions, it is approximately that found among those with non-malignant chronic conditions. Those with cancer are more likely to report praying for their health, using support groups, and taking multiple dietary supplements. They are less apt to use CAM providers or special diets. Socio-demographic factors associated with CAM use vary by specific CAM modality. Site of the cancer was not associated with any particular CAM modality. The use of CAM therapies specifically promoted as cancer therapies was not common, especially among those diagnosed recently. The use of CAM providers and mind,body techniques specifically for the purpose of treating cancer is unusual (<10%), while special diets are more frequently employed for the purpose of treatment and/or prevention of the cancer itself. A clear majority of those who do use CAM for treating cancer report at least some benefit from the treatment, and are likely to inform their physicians of such use. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Complementary and integrative medical therapies, the FDA, and the NIH: definitions and regulation

DERMATOLOGIC THERAPY, Issue 2 2003
Michael H. Cohen
ABSTRACT: ,,The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) presently defines complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as covering "a broad range of healing philosophies (schools of thought), approaches, and therapies that mainstream Western (conventional) medicine does not commonly use, accept, study, understand, or make available. The research landscape, including NCCAM-funded research, is continually changing and subject to vigorous methodologic and interpretive debates. Part of the impetus for greater research dollars in this arena has been increasing consumer reliance on CAM to dramatically expand. State (not federal) law controls much of CAM practice. However, a significant federal role exists in the regulation of dietary supplements. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates foods, drugs, and cosmetics in interstate commerce. No new "drug" may be introduced into interstate commerce unless proven "safe" and "effective" for its intended use, as determined by FDA regulations. "Foods", however, are subject to different regulatory requirements, and need not go through trials proving safety and efficacy. The growing phenomenon of consumer use of vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other "dietary supplements" challenged the historical divide between drugs and foods. The federal Dietary Supplements Health Education Act (DSHEA) allows manufacturers to distribute dietary supplements without having to prove safety and efficacy, so long as the manufacturers make no claims linking the supplements to a specific disease. State law regulates the use of CAM therapies through a variety of legal rules. Of these, several major areas of concern for clinicians are professional licensure, scope of practice, and malpractice. Regarding licensure, each state has enacted medical licensing that prohibits the unlicensed practice of medicine and thereby criminalizes activity by unlicensed CAM providers who offer health care services to patients. Malpractice is defined as unskillful practice which fails to conform to a standard of care in the profession and results in injury. The definition is no different in CAM than in general medicine; its application to CAM, however, raises novel questions. Courts rely on medical consensus regarding the appropriateness of a given therapy. A framework for assessing potential liability risk involves assessing the medical evidence concerning safety and efficacy, and then aligning clinical decisions with liability concerns. Ultimately research will or will not establish a specific CAM therapy as an important part of the standard of care for the condition in question. Legal rules governing CAM providers and practices are, in many cases, new and evolving. Further, laws vary by state and their application depends on the specific clinical scenario in question. New research is constantly emerging, as are federal and state legislative developments and judicial opinions resulting from litigation. [source]

Patient-based evaluations of primary care for cardiovascular diseases: a comparison between conventional and complementary medicine

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 1 2008
Klazien Matter-Walstra PhD
Abstract Background, Patients with chronic diseases, including cardiovascular conditions, increasingly rely on complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies. Objectives, The Swiss Program for Complementary Medicine Evaluation offers a unique opportunity to analyse cardiovascular patients' satisfaction with CAM and conventional medical (COM) therapies. The treatment choices of doctors certified in conventional as well as complementary therapies also could be studied. Methods, A national observational evaluation on treatment satisfaction of patients consulting COM or CAM doctors. Out of this evaluation project, data related to patients with cardiovascular diseases were specifically analysed for patient satisfaction with treatment and outcome when treated by COM or CAM doctors. Results, Of 199 included doctors (78 COM, 121 CAM) treating cardiovascular patients, COM doctors treated twice as many cardiovascular patients per doctor than CAM doctors. CAM doctors treated less than 1/3 of their cardiovascular patients solely by CAM, while they treated 42% exclusively by COM therapies. Patients seeing a CAM doctor had a significantly longer consultation and were more likely to be highly satisfied with overall treatment outcome and patient-practitioner communication. Moreover, patients seeing a CAM doctor and being treated solely by a CAM therapy more often report ,complete fulfilment of outcome expectation' and ,high overall satisfaction with treatment', although their symptoms less often disappear totally than those of COM therapy-treated patients. Conclusion, CAM therapies are not the first treatment choice for cardiovascular diseases. However, even though CAM doctors preferentially apply COM therapies, cardiovascular patients treated by CAM doctors are more likely to be satisfied with the overall treatment outcome, possibly because of the longer and better patient,practitioner interaction. [source]