Is complementary/alternative medicine safe?

Complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) is popular but is it safe? Following last month's article, Professor Edzard Ernst and Dr Adriane Fugh-Berman assess the evidence on acupuncture, homeopathy, and chiropractic

Many users and practitioners of CAM assert that CAM is entirely safe. Therapies are perceived to be natural and thus, in a stunning leap of logic, non-toxic. Most therapies have both direct risks1-5 and indirect risks. Although the incidence of severe adverse effects following acupuncture, homeopathy, and chiropractic is probably low, complications do occur and are being reported in the medical literature. The actual incidence of such complications is unknown. Due to the lack of reliable reporting systems for adverse events, we have no choice but to rely on largely anecdotal data.

Acupuncture

A survey of 1135 Norwegian doctors and 197 acupuncturists found that 12 per cent of doctors and 31 per cent of acupuncturists reported adverse effects. The most common adverse reactions were fainting, local skin infections, and increased pain6. Internal injuries have been reported, including pneumothorax, cardiac tamponade, and spinal cord lesions; a Medline search for adverse effects of acupuncture between 1981 and 1994 uncovered 78 reports with a total of 193 patients7. Pneumothorax, in 23 patients, was the most common internal injury. The most common complication overall was hepatitis in 100 patients. In Rhode Island in 1984 a single acupuncturist was responsible for an outbreak of 35 cases of hepatitis8. Infection from inadequately sterilised reusable needles is clearly a completely preventable problem; today only disposable needles are currently used in the US. A recent systematic review of all published reports of severe adverse effects concluded9 that 'serious adverse events have been associated with acupuncture. Acupuncturists should demonstrate how successfully they minimize the risks and put in place regulatory and surveillance systems that enable us to define the extent of the problem more closely. If this should prove to be unsuccessful, an intra-professional problem for the acupuncturists could become a general, social one.'

Homeopathy

There are few reports of direct harm from homeopathy, but there is one reported case of pancreatitis following ingestion of a homeopathic remedy10. 'Low potency' (less dilute) homeopathic preparations can contain enough allergen to cause a reaction in atopic individuals or enough heavy metal to be potentially toxic11.

Chiropractic

Although infrequent, complications from chiropractic can be severe. The incidence of vascular accidents is estimated to be one to four per million treatments; 359 vascular accidents were registered to the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association as of 198112. A survey of 177 neurologists in California reported 55 strokes associated with spinal manipulation in a two year period13. An authoritative, recent review of all published reports of complications related to spinal manipulation found 298 such incidents: 165 vertebrobasilar accidents, 61 cases with disc herniation or progression to cauda equina syndrome, 13 cerebral complications other than the above-mentioned and 56 other types of complications14. The authors draw far-reaching conclusions: 'referral for spinal manipulation therapy should not be made to practitioners applying rotary cervical manipulation'.

Only two prospective investigations on the safety of chiropractic exist15,16. With a total sample of 1500 patients, they show that about half of all patients seeing a chiropractor will experience adverse effects. These are usually mild and transientÑlocal pain was the most frequent adverse effect and there was no serious complication in this series.

Other risks

In addition to direct hazards, there are indirect risks associated with CAM. These include misdiagnosis of treatable conditions; the use of therapies without proven efficacy, when therapies with proven efficacy are available; and disregard of contraindications or interactions. Examples of such indirect risks are the negative attitude of some practitioners against immunisation17 or the overt over-use of chiropractors of X-rays18. These indirect risks are complex, delicate issues that will be an important component of future debates on establishing competence for and regulating CAM practitioners.

Risk evaluation

In conventional medicine, a 'mini risk/benefit evaluation' is done whenever a treatment is prescribed or administered. Substantial risks are acceptable when the expected benefits are high (as in cancer treatment), while, in cases where the condition is minor or the benefit questionable (for instance the common cold), only trivial risks are acceptable. It must be kept in mind that any benefits of CAM cannot be evaluated in isolation; rigorous investigation of safety issues must also be undertaken in order to establish usefulness. Risk/benefit evaluations cannot be done when only one side of the ratio is known.

Economics

Economic evaluations of CAM are in their infancy. Assessments of cost-effectiveness must take into account short-term and long-term direct and indirect costs. An inexpensive therapy with a high rate of expensive complications is no bargain. On the other hand, an expensive curative therapy may save long-term costs over an inexpensive treatment used indefinitely. And, of course, a prerequisite for ascertaining cost-effectiveness is determining therapeutic effectiveness, and hard data is scanty in the CAM area19.

The largest amount of evidence for cost-effectiveness exists for chiropractic as used for low back pain, but no firm conclusions are as yet possible: a recent trial from the UK suggests that it might save expense20 while another study from the US implies that it is not good value for money21. As proper assessments of the cost questions emerge21-24, serious doubts are raised about the likelihood that CAM will eventually save money. The more likely scenario is that it will increase the overall expenditure in our health care systems 22,23.

Because rationing of health care has become a regrettable necessity in many countries, it is imperative to use proper scientific methods to investigate the total cost of CAM. Within the financial constraints of the health care system, a given patient should be treated not only with a therapy that has been proven to be effective and safe but with one that can be shown to be more cost-effective than competing options25.

Conclusions



Akin to the conclusion made in last month's article about the efficacy of CAM, the evidence for or against CAM in terms of safety and costs is also insufficient, and thus considering rigorous research in this area is urgently needed.

Edzard Ernst is Professor of Complementary Medicine and Director of the Department of Complementary Medicine, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Exeter (e-mail: E.Ernst@exeter.ac.uk); Adriane Fugh-Berman is a researcher at the National Women's Health Network, Washington DC, USA (e-mail: fughbera@exchange.nih.gov)

References

1 Ernst E. The risks of acupuncture. Int J Risk Saf Med 1995; 6: 179-186
2 Ernst E. Cervical manipulation: is it really safe? Int J Risk Saf Med 1994;6:145-149
3 Ernst E. The safety of homeopathy. Br Homoeop J 1995; 84: 193-4
4 Abbot NC, White AR, Ernst E. Complementary Medicine. Nature 1996; 381: 361.
5 Ernst E, De Smet PAGM. Adverse effects of complementary therapies. In Meyler's Side Effects, Dukes MNG (Ed.) Elsevier, Amsterdam 1996
6 Norheim AJ, Fonnebo V. Adverse effects of acupuncture. Lancet 1995; 345: 1576
7 Norheim AJ. Adverse effects of acupuncture: a study of the literature for the years 1981-1994. J Alt Comp Med 1996; 2(2): 291-97
8 Kent GP, Brondum J, Keenlyside RA. A large outbreak of acupuncture-associated hepatitis B. Am J Epi 1988; 127 (3): 591-98
9 Ernst E, White AR. Life threatening adverse reactions after acupuncture? A systematic review. Pain 1997; 71: 123-6
10 Kerr HD, Yarborough GW. Pancreatitis following ingestion of a homeopathic preparation. N Engl J Med 1988; 314: 1642-43
11 Ernst E. Direct risks associated with complementary therapies. In: Ernst E (Ed.) Complementary Medicine: an objective appraisal. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford UK 1996
12 Robertson JF. Neck manipulation as a cause of stroke. Stroke 1981; 12: 1
13 Lee PK, Carlini WG, McCormick GF, Albers GW. Neurologic complications following chiropractic manipulation. Neurology 1995; 5: 1213-15
14 Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Complications of spinal manipulation: A comprehensive review of the literature. J Fam Pract 1996; 42: 475-80
15 Leboeuf-Yde C, Hennius B, Rudberg E, Leufvenmark P, Thunman M. Side effects of chiropractic treatment: A prospective study. J Manip Physiol Ther 1997; 20 (8): 511-15
16 Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C and Borchgrevink C. Frequency and Characteristics of side effects of spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 1997; 22: 435-41
17 Ernst E. The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine. Eur J Pediatr 1997; 156: 513-5
18 Ernst E. Chiropractors' use of X-rays. A systematic review. Br J Radiol 1998; 71: 249-51
19 White AR, Resch KL, Ernst E. Methods of Economic Evaluation in Complementary Medicine. Forsch Komplementärmed 1996; 3: 196-203
20 Meade TW, Dyer S, Browne W, Frank AO. Randomized comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain: results from extended follow up. Br Med J 1995; 311: 349-351
21 Carey TS, Garrett J, Jackman A, McLaughlin C, Fryer J, Smucker DR. The outcome and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopaedic surgeons. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 913-7
22 MacLennan AH, Wilson DH, Taylor AW. Prevalence and cost of alternative medicine in Australia. Lancet 1996; 347: 569-73
23 Brugi M, Sommer JH, Theiss R. Alternative Heilmethoden Verbreitungsmuster in der Schweiz. Rueger Zurich 1996
24 Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM. Does the goose really lay the golden eggs? A methodological review of workmen's compensation studies. J Manip Physiol Ther 1993; 16: 161-8
25 Ernst E. The ethics of complementary medicine. J Med Ethics 1996; 22: 197-8

Want to know more, click here to find further sources of information on CAM: More about CAM