The use of complementary and alternative medicine in patients seen in phase I clinical trials program.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9091-9091
Author(s):  
S. Stephen ◽  
A. Naing ◽  
D. S. Hong ◽  
S. Fu ◽  
J. J. Wheler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by patients enrolled in phase I clinical trials

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (14_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8053-8053
Author(s):  
S. Mandrekar ◽  
G. K. Dy ◽  
A. Furth ◽  
L. Bekele ◽  
L. Hanson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Cam Use ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use by Patients Enrolled Onto Phase I Clinical Trials

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (23) ◽  
pp. 4810-4815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace K. Dy ◽  
Lishan Bekele ◽  
Lorelei J. Hanson ◽  
Alfred Furth ◽  
Sumithra Mandrekar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Cam Use ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Purpose To describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and pattern of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients enrolled onto phase I trials. Patients and Methods Questionnaires were administered to 108 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled onto phase I chemotherapy trials at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (Rochester, MN). CAM was classified into two modalities, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. Clinical and demographic data, including age, sex, and prior cancer treatment, were subsequently obtained from patient charts and examined for any correlation with CAM use, using χ2 analysis. Results One hundred two survey forms were returned. Among respondents, 88.2% (90 of 102) had used at least one CAM modality; 93.3% (84 of 90) and 53.3% (48 of 90) had used pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic CAM, respectively; and 46.7% (42 of 90) used both modalities. Vitamin and mineral preparations constituted 89.3% (75 of 84) of all pharmacologic CAM used. Intake was highest for vitamins E (48.8% [41 of 84]) and C (38.1% [32 of 84]), and 71.4% (60 of 84) of respondents took nonvitamin/mineral agents. Green tea (29.8% [25 of 84]), echinacea (13.1% [11 of 84]), and essiac (9.5% [8 of 84]) were the most popular. Prayer and spiritual practices were the most commonly used nonpharmacologic CAM, accounting for 52.1% (25 of 48). Chiropractors, the most frequently visited nontraditional medicine practitioners, were consulted by only 10% (9 of 90) of those who practiced CAM. Both CAM modalities were used more frequently by women (53.5% [23 of 43]) than men (40.4% [19 of 47]). Conclusion CAM use is common among patients in phase I trials and should be ascertained by investigators, because some of the agents used may interact with investigational agents and affect adverse effects and/or efficacy.

scholarly journals CoVAM: Complementary and Alternative Medicine Clinical Trials Database for COVID-19 Disease

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishwas Sharma ◽  
Zoya Mann ◽  
Amitesh Sharma ◽  
Avani Srivast ◽  
Pawan Kumar Raghav ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Easy Access ◽  
Start Date ◽  
Auricular Point ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Abstract Since the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large number of clinical trials on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19 disease) have been registered. The information is scattered at different resources making it difficult for researchers, scientists, health care professionals, and the general public to remain up-to-date on the latest CAM clinical trials being registered for COVID-19. The Complementary and Alternative Medicine Clinical Trials Database CoVAM (http://www.covam.in) is developed to provide the scientific community easy access to the latest information on the CAM clinical trials registered globally for COVID-19 disease. To develop the CoVAM, MySQL was used. API management was done through NodeJs (With Express), and Angular 11 was used as front end. The CoVAM is a single platform organized by ten CAM subtypes such as Acupuncture, Auricular point pressing, Ayurveda, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Psychotherapy, Siddha, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Vitamins and dietary supplements, and Yoga/ Exercise. Each subtype has information on CAM medicines/ therapy being registered, the full title of the clinical trial, sponsor name, sponsor protocol number/ ID, age of the population, study type, actual number of participant enrolment for the trial, followed by the start date, phase, and status of the clinical trial. Each fact is linked to the clinical trial database/s from where the information was procured. Additionally, CoVAM is hyperlinked with PubMed for providing recent updates on COVID-19 and CAM research. To the best of our knowledge, CoVAM is a first-of-its-kind database that provides comprehensive information on globally registered CAMs related clinical trials conducted on COVID-19 disease.

Use and perceptions of complementary and alternative medicine in a community cancer center.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19646-e19646
Author(s):  
Mike Cusnir ◽  
Christina Pozo-Kaderman ◽  
Irene Sullivan ◽  
Elaine Vinas
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Economic Status ◽  
South Florida ◽  
Spiritual Practices ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

e19646 Background: Studies over the past 10 years in the general population showed use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to no more than 42% with the largest study reporting only 28% use in adults. In the cancer population one of the largest studies showed that 83.3% had used at least one CAM approach. After excluding spiritual practices and psychotherapy, 95.8% of participants were aware of CAM and 68.7% of those had used CAM. However most of this information has been obtained in academic medical centers that would be biased since the use of CAM has also been reported to vary by location, education and socio-economic status. Methods: We evaluated with a questionnaire similar to the one use by Richardson et al, in 2000 looking for prevalence and predictors of CAM use in a south Florida community cancer center with a culturally diverse patient population, many of Hispanic descent, we also evaluated the opinion about participating in CAM clinical trials.150 consecutive patients coming to the cancer center were given a questionnaire of which 112 are evaluable at the time of this report. Results: Average age was 66 years, 50 % of the patients were males, 56% of the patients were actively on chemotherapy, 10% on hormonal manipulations and 33% were not actively on treatment. 52% had heard of the term CAM, 34 % had heard the term integrative medicine, 18% had use CAM for their cancer treatment. Only 27% of the patients had discussed the use or interest in use of CAM with one of the health care providers. 59% expressed interest in participating in CAM clinical trials. Regarding specific therapies that the patients had used to “treat cancer” 8% had used dietary interventions, 15% had used movement therapies (TaiChi, yoga, etc.), 12% use of mind-body practices, 25% had used herbal and vitamin supplements and 25 % had used spiritual practices. Conclusions: Our study population had slightly lower use of CAM than in academic centers however the type of practices used appears to be different with increased use of mind/body and movement techniques over spiritual practices which might be a cultural effect. We also found a strong interest and will to participate in clinical trials that should be a window of opportunity to test these therapies in community settings.

Clinical trials in complementary and alternative medicine – the myth of limitations

10.20883/161 ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 327
Author(s):  
Tomasz Rzepiński ◽  
Piotr Tabaczewski
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Conventional Medicine ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

The  paper aims to dispute common arguments put forward by practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in discussions against conducting clinical trials in CAM treatment protocols. It is argued that CAM therapies cannot be evaluated by the same criteria as those applied in conventional medicine due to specificity of CAM. This paper suggests that this line of thought undermines not only the validity of CAM therapies, but, importantly, is delaying understanding their therapeutical value. We also argue that despite apparent differences in approach both conventional medicine and CAM aim to improve human well being therefore CAM should be validated with well established and widely accepted process of balancing of risks and benefits of individual therapies as in conventional medicine clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document