Holding Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Conventional Medicine to the
Same Standards
These days it is
not unusual for people to take herbal remedies along with their
prescription drugs, or for physicians to field questions from patients
about how well acupuncture alleviates arthritis pain. About one-third of
all American adults have used some form of complementary and
alternative medicine (CAM). As the popularity these treatments has grown
in the United States, debate has flared over how much is known about
their safety and efficacy, whether they can and should undergo clinical
testing, and the extent to which CAM and conventional medicine can and
should be integrated.
In a recent report, a committee of the Institute of Medicine examined
these issues from the perspective of what is needed to improve the
quality of health care delivery in America. The goal is to achieve care
centered on patients' needs and preferences and based on the best
available scientific evidence.
"Health professionals and patients need sufficient information about
safety and efficacy to take advantage of all useful therapies," said
committee chair Stuart Bondurant, interim executive vice president for
health sciences and executive dean, Georgetown University Medical
Center, Washington, D.C. "What matters is not a particular therapy's
origins, but rather that there is evidence that it is safe and that it
works."
To that end, the committee called for conventional treatments and
complementary and alternative treatments to be held to the same
standards for demonstrating clinical effectiveness. While this means
that both types of therapies should undergo some form of clinical
testing, innovative methods may have to be used to test some treatments
that do not lend themselves to randomized controlled trials -- the gold
standard for developing reliable evidence. This is as much the case for a
surgical procedure that depends upon the administering professional's
skills as for naturopathy, for example, the committee noted. Data from
other types of studies, such as observational and case-controlled
studies, can provide useful information about safety and effectiveness,
the report says.
CAM practitioners who know the methods and goals of a particular
product or therapy should be involved in its testing to ensure that it
is applied correctly and in the right context. To prepare them for this
new role, CAM training programs should begin teaching students research
skills and principles. At the same time, health professional schools
should provide future doctors, nurses, and other health providers with
education about CAM.
Testing of dietary supplements -- among the most frequently used
forms of CAM -- runs into particular difficulties because these products
are regulated as foods rather than drugs. There is no requirement and
little incentive for supplement manufacturers to conduct safety and
efficacy tests of their products, and quality control in supplement
manufacturing is often lacking, leading to inconsistency among and
within brands. Consistent products are essential to do studies that
yield reliable and broadly applicable results. Health practitioners need
to know that the supplements their clients use are safe and effective,
so the report calls on Congress to implement quality-control standards
for each step of the supplement manufacturing process and to enforce
more accurate labeling and disclosures and other consumer protections.
Resources to conduct testing of medical therapies are finite,
however. The report offers several criteria to help guide decisions
about which CAM therapies to prioritize for study. These criteria apply
equally well to help prioritize untested conventional treatments.
-- Christine Stencel
-- Christine Stencel
No comments:
Post a Comment