A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens’ needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public’s health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

Complementary Medicine in Nursing Homes - Results of a Mixed Methods Pilot Study

Background ‘Kneipp Therapy’ (KT) is a form of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) that includes a combination of hydrotherapy, herbal medicine, mind-body medicine, physical activities, and healthy eating. Since 2007, some nursing homes for older adults in Germany began to integrate CAM in the form of KT in care. The study investigated how KT is used in daily routine care and explored the health status of residents and caregivers involved in KT. Methods We performed a cross-sectional pilot study with a mixed methods approach that collected both quantitative and qualitative data in four German nursing homes in 2011. Assessments in the quantitative component included the Quality of Life in Dementia (QUALIDEM), the Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12), the Barthel-Index for residents and the Work Ability Index (WAI) and SF-12 for caregivers. The qualitative component addressed the residents’ and caregivers’ subjectively experienced changes after integration of KT. It was conceptualized as an ethnographic rapid appraisal by conducting participant observation and semi-structured interviews in two of the four nursing homes. Results The quantitative component included 64 residents (53 female, 83.2 ± 8.1 years (mean and SD)) and 29 caregivers (all female, 42.0 ± 11.7 years). Residents were multimorbid (8 ± 3 diagnoses), and activities of daily living were restricted (Barthel-Index 60.6 ± 24.4). The caregivers’ results indicated good work ability (WAI 37.4 ± 5.1), health related quality of life was superior to the German sample (SF-12 physical CSS 49.2 ± 8.0; mental CSS 54.1 ± 6.6). Among both caregivers and residents, 89% considered KT to be positive for well-being. The qualitative analysis showed that caregivers perceived emotional and functional benefits from more content and calmer residents, a larger variety in basic care practices, and a more self-determined scope of action. Residents reported gains in attention and caring, and recognition of their lay knowledge. Conclusion Residents showed typical characteristics of nursing home inhabitants. Caregivers demonstrated good work ability. Both reported to have benefits from KT. The results provide a good basis for future projects, e.g. controlled studies to evaluate the effects of CAM in nursing homes.

Appropriateness and long-term discontinuation rate of biological therapies in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND Anti-TNFα agents are commonly used for ulcerative colitis (UC) therapy in the event of non-response to conventional strategies or as colon-salvaging therapy. The objectives were to assess the appropriateness of biological therapies for UC patients and to study treatment discontinuation over time, according to appropriateness of treatment, as a measure of outcome. METHODS We selected adult ulcerative colitis patients from the Swiss IBD cohort who had been treated with anti-TNFα agents. Appropriateness of the first-line anti-TNFα treatment was assessed using detailed criteria developed during the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Therapy for UC. Treatment discontinuation as an outcome was assessed for categories of appropriateness. RESULTS Appropriateness of the first-line biological treatment was determined in 186 UC patients. For 64% of them, this treatment was considered appropriate. During follow-up, 37% of all patients discontinued biological treatment, 17% specifically because of failure. Time-to-failure of treatment was significantly different among patients on an appropriate biological treatment compared to those for whom the treatment was considered not appropriate (p=0.0007). Discontinuation rate after 2years was 26% compared to 54% between those two groups. Patients on inappropriate biological treatment were more likely to have severe disease, concomitant steroids and/or immunomodulators. They were also consistently more likely to suffer a failure of efficacy and to stop therapy during follow-up. CONCLUSION Appropriateness of first-line anti-TNFα therapy results in a greater likelihood of continuing with the therapy. In situations where biological treatment is uncertain or inappropriate, physicians should consider other options instead of prescribing anti-TNFα agents.

Cancer-related therapies at the end of life in hospitalized cancer patients from four Swiss cantons: SAKK 89/09.

The use of cancer-related therapies in cancer patients hospitalized at the end of life has increased in many countries over time. Given the scarcity of published Swiss data, the objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of hospital type and other factors on the delivery of health care during the last month before death. Claims data were used to assess health care utilization of cancer patients (identified by cancer registry data of four participating Swiss cantons) who deceased between 2006 and 2008. Primary endpoints were delivery of cancer-related therapies during the last 30 days before death. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the explanatory value of hospital type, patient and geographic characteristics. Of 3,809 identified cancer patients in the claims database, 2,086 patients dying from cancer were hospitalized during the last 30 days before death, generating 2,262 inpatient episodes. Anticancer drug therapy was given in 22.2% and radiotherapy in 11.7% of episodes. Besides age and cancer type, the canton of residence and hospital type showed independent, statistically significant associations with intensity of care, which was highest in university hospitals. These results should initiate a discussion among oncologists in Switzerland and may question the compliance with standard of care guidelines for terminal cancer patients.

The effectiveness and safety of rescue treatments in 108 patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis with sequential rescue therapies in a subgroup of patients

BACKGROUND: Among patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) in whom a first rescue therapy has failed, a second line salvage treatment can be considered to avoid colectomy. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of second or third line rescue therapy over a one-year period. METHODS: Response to single or sequential rescue treatments with infliximab (5mg/kg intravenously (iv) at week 0, 2, 6 and then every 8weeks), ciclosporin (iv 2mg/kg/daily and then oral 5mg/kg/daily) or tacrolimus (0.05mg/kg divided in 2 doses) in steroid-refractory moderate to severe UC patients from 7 Swiss and 1 Serbian tertiary IBD centers was retrospectively studied. The primary endpoint was the one year colectomy rate. RESULTS: 60% of patients responded to the first rescue therapy, 10% went to colectomy and 30% non-responders were switched to a 2(nd) line rescue treatment. 66% of patients responded to the 2(nd) line treatment whereas 34% failed, of which 15% went to colectomy and 19% received a 3(rd) line rescue treatment. Among those, 50% patients went to colectomy. Overall colectomy rate of the whole cohort was 18%. Steroid-free remission rate was 39%. The adverse event rates were 33%, 37.5% and 30% for the first, second and third line treatment respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data show that medical intervention even with 2(nd) and 3(rd) rescue treatments decreased colectomy frequency within one year of follow up. A longer follow-up will be necessary to investigate whether sequential therapy will only postpone colectomy and what percentage of patients will remain in long-term remission.

Novel Nonbiologic Therapies for Ulcerative Colitis

An extensive array of compounds has been studied for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The most frequently used nonbiologic drugs for the oral and intravenous treatment of ulcerative colitis include 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) drugs (mesalamine and derivatives), sulfasalazine, and other azo-bonded molecules of 5-ASA, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and sirolimus), thiopurines (azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine), and methotrexate, which are already presented in other sections of this book and are thus not considered in this chapter. The therapies presented in this section should be considered as potential alternatives, mostly for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). They are substances mostly used without FDA indications, such as heparin, nicotine, rosiglitazone, and N-acetylcysteine as well as “natural” compounds suggested to have anti-inflammatory or reparative properties, such as aloe vera, curcumin, short-chain fatty acids, and Bowman-Birk inhibitor

Novel targeted therapies for eosinophil-associated diseases and allergy.

Eosinophil-associated diseases often present with life-threatening manifestations and/or chronic organ damage. Currently available therapeutic options are limited to a few drugs that often have to be prescribed on a lifelong basis to keep eosinophil counts under control. In the past 10 years, treatment options and outcomes in patients with clonal eosinophilic and other eosinophilic disorders have improved substantially. Several new targeted therapies have emerged, addressing different aspects of eosinophil expansion and inflammation. In this review, we discuss available and currently tested agents as well as new strategies and drug targets relevant to both primary and secondary eosinophilic diseases, including allergic disorders.