Complementary and alternative medicine need more randomized trials

Since I dedicated an entire issue of JAMA on Nov. 11, 1998 to the theme of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in an effort to move CAM into the mainstream, I keep hoping that some of the numerous CAM offerings will make it out of the realm of anecdotal and placebo-healer-effect, and successfully through randomized controlled clinical trials.

So I got excited when I saw the BMJ Evidence Centre via McMaster feature the article, entitled “Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review,” published in Rheumatology in September 2011.

The authors critically evaluated the evidence regarding complementary and alternative medicine taken orally or applied topically (excluding fish oil) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

They studied randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of RA using CAMs, in comparison with other treatments or placebo, published in English up to August 2010.

The RCTs were identified using systematic searches of bibliographic databases and manual searching of reference lists. Information was extracted on outcomes and statistical significance in comparison with other treatments, and reported side effects. The methodological quality of the primary studies was determined using the Jadad scoring system.

Reported RCTs were available for 18 CAMs in the management of RA.

There was no consistent evidence available for any of the reviewed substances to suggest that they were efficacious as complementary medicine compared to standard treatment.

However, two studies conducted on borage seed oil and three on thunder god vine have been positive and may warrant further investigation.

The authors concluded that the major limitation in reviewing the evidence for CAMs is the paucity of RCTs in the field.

Nonetheless, the available evidence does not support CAM use currently in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Too bad.

An ideal disease example to study — important, common, highly symptomatic, even deforming and debilitating, although usually nonfatal.

Well, maybe the thunder god vine will be the breakthrough CAM has been looking for.

More RCTs, please.

George Lundberg is a MedPage Today Editor-at-Large and former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

email

  • http://expatdoctormom.com/ Expat Doctor Mom

    I am newly venturing into the study of Functional Medicine and couldn’t agree with you more that more RCT’s are needed.   Thanks for highlighting this need.

  • http://twitter.com/sarasteinmd Sara Stein MD

    Which drug company is going to pay for those? Considering that industry is the main source of funding for drug trials, and also considering the corruption that underlie some of them, small exploratory studies may be all we get when there is no profit involved for the underwriter. There is very little the NIH can fund relative to the amount of RCT’s needed.

  • Anonymous

    The main lesson that can be learned from all the hype over CAM is that when ”treatments” are rolled out before proof of efficacy they look far more like sCAMs than viable alternative to science-based medical practice. This is not to say that there is not viable alternatives to drugs and surgeries. In fact I have seen HTN, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, and numerous other ills treated far more effectively with diet and lifestyle changes than can be produced with drugs or surgery. Of course, this is not all that surprising given that such a treatment involves eliminating the major causal agents that drive the pathological process. Indeed, the main lesson from CAM should be that when drugs and particularly surgical interventions are rolled out without proof that their efficacy outweighs their risks they too should be viewed as SCAMS. One blatant scam is rushing patients with stable angina or even asymptomatic CAD into angioplasty for a quick buck. This is as shamfull as most scams and far most costly. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/brianpcurry Brian Curry

      I think that it’s important to highlight the fact that diet and lifestyle changes are in no way “alternative therapies”. Lifestyle modification has long been a mainstay of conventional, effective medicine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brianpcurry Brian Curry

    Why is it too bad that current evidence doesn’t support the use of sCAM? Seems to me that this is a wonderful example of the fact that science works.

  • Anonymous

    Brian – I agree 100% that diet & lifestyle should not be viewed the same as sCAMS. Why? Because unlike sCAMS diet & lifestyle is scienced-based. However, diet and lifestyle are often a grossly under-utilixed science-based alternative to drugs and surgery for numerous ills such as coronary artery disease or hypertension. It is time for our healthcare system to stop talking about diet and lifestyle (whilst paying only for medical (drugs & surgery) treatments and start paying for diet counseling for ills caused largely by diet and lifestyle choices.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WWEC2BM6SYRIYQJQ2LOYFPRGCE Susan Fitzgerald

    The problem is that RCTs like to test one thing in isolation. holistic remedies are just that – holistic, more than one component. To test their effectiveness, RCTs need to be redesigned.

Trending