Herbs or natural substances as complementary therapies for chronic kidney disease: ideas for future studies

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an increasingly common condition with limited treatment options that is placing a major financial and emotional burden on the community. The use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMS) has increased many-fold over the past decade. Although several compelling studies show renal toxicities and an adverse outcome from use of some CAMS, there is also emerging evidence in the literature that some may be renoprotective. Many nephrologists are unaware of these potential therapeutic benefits in treating CKD, or they are reluctant to consider them in research trials for fear of adverse effects (including nephrotoxicity) or deleterious interaction with co-prescribed, conventional medicines. The increased use of self-prescribed CAMS by their patients suggests that practitioners and researchers should keep abreast of the current information on these agents. A primary goal of this article was to review the available scientific evidence for the use of herbs or natural substances as a complementary treatment for patients with CKD. A further goal was to report the literature on herbs that have been reported to cause kidney failure.

Public reporting of hospital outcomes based on administrative data: risks and opportunities

In the wake of findings from the Bundaberg Hospital and Forster inquiries in Queensland, periodic public release of hospital performance reports has been recommended. A process for developing and releasing such reports is being established by Queensland Health, overseen by an independent expert panel. This recommendation presupposes that public reports based on routinely collected administrative data are accurate; that the public can access, correctly interpret and act upon report contents; that reports motivate hospital clinicians and managers to improve quality of care; and that there are no unintended adverse effects of public reporting. Available research suggests that primary data sources are often inaccurate and incomplete, that reports have low predictive value in detecting outlier hospitals, and that users experience difficulty in accessing and interpreting reports and tend to distrust their findings.

The mental health risks of adolescent cannabis use

Since the early 1970s, when cannabis first began to be widely used [1], the proportion of young people who have used cannabis has steeply increased and the age of first use has declined [2, 3]. Most cannabis users now start in the mid-to-late teens [1], an important period of psychosocial transition when misadventures can have large adverse effects on a young person's life chances.

The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: costs and beliefs in 2004

Objective: To survey the use, cost, beliefs and quality of life of users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Design: A representative population survey conducted in 2004 with longitudinal comparison to similar 1993 and 2000 surveys. Participants: 3015 South Australian respondents over the age of 15 years (71.7% participation). Results: In 2004, CAMs were used by 52.2% of the population. Greatest use was in women aged 25-34 years, with higher income and education levels. CAM therapists had been visited by 26.5% of the population. In those with children, 29.9% administered CAMs to them and 17.5% of the children had visited CAM therapists. The total extrapolated cost in Australia of CAMs and CAM therapists in 2004 was AUD$1.8 billion, which was a decrease from AUD$2.3 billion in 2000. CAMs were used mostly to maintain general health. The users of CAM had lower quality-of-life scores than non-users. Among CAM users, 49.7% used conventional medicines on the same day and 57.2% did not report the use of CAMs to their doctor. About half of the respondents assumed that CAMs were independently tested by a government agency; of these, 74.8% believed they were tested for quality and safety, 21.8% for what they claimed, and 17.9% for efficacy. Conclusions: Australians continue to use high levels of CAMs and CAM therapists. The public is often unaware that CAMs are not tested by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for efficacy or safety.