Use of complementary and alternative medicine and quality of life: changes at the end of life

The purpose of this study was to compare the physical, psychological and social dimensions associated with quality-of-life outcomes over the last year of life, between advanced cancer users and nonusers of complementary and alternative medicine. One hundred and eleven patients were identified through Queensland Cancer Registry records, and followed up every four to six weeks until close to death using standardized protocols. Outcome measures were symptom burden, psychological distress, subjective wellbeing, satisfaction with conventional medicine and need for control over treatment decisions. At the initial interview, 36 (32%) participants had used complementary/ alternative medicine the previous week; mainly vitamins, minerals and tonics and herbal remedies. Among all participants, 53 (48%) used at least one form of complementary/ alternative medicine over the study period. Only six (11%) visited alternative practitioners on a regular basis. Overall, complementary/ alternative medicine users reported higher levels of anxiety and pain, less satisfaction with conventional medicine and lower need for control over treatment decisions compared with nonusers. These differences tend to change as death approaches. A more rigorous assessment of complementary/ alternative medicine use, psychological distress, pain and subjective wellbeing among patients with advanced cancer is needed in the clinical setting.

The other side of the coin: safety of complementary and alternative medicine

Most consumers consider complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) products inherently safe. The growing simultaneous use of CAM products and pharmaceutical drugs by Australian consumers increases the risk of CAM-drug interactions. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has a two-tier, risk-based regulatory system for therapeutic goods - CAM products are regulated as low risk products and are assessed for quality and safety; and sponsors of products must hold the evidence for any claim of efficacy made about them. Adverse reactions to CAM products can be classified as intrinsic (innate to the product), or extrinsic (where the risk is not related to the product itself, but results from the failure of good manufacturing practice). Adverse reactions to CAM practices can be classified as risks of commission (which includes removal of medical therapy) and risks of omission (which includes failure to refer when appropriate). While few systematic studies of adverse events with CAM exist, and under-reporting is likely, most CAM products and practices do not appear to present a high risk; their safety needs to be put into the perspective of wider safety issues. A priority for research is to rigorously define the risks associated with both CAM products and practices so that their potential impact on public health can be assessed.