Unconventional therapies in asthma

• Published in: Drugs of today (Barcelona, Spain : 1998) Vol. 37; no. 10; p. 651
• Main Authors: Szelenyi, Istvan, Brune, Kay
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Spain 01.10.2001
• ISSN: 1699-3993
• DOI: 10.1358/dot.2001.37.10.844212

Complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) is more popular than ever before. Patients with allergic diseases often seek so-called alternative treatment as supplementation but seldom as a real alternative to classical medicine. Innumerable physicians and even more patients feel confident that CAM is effective and safe without seriously questioning this notion. The lack of clear opinion or guidelines can be explained on the one hand by the present trend that tradition should be questioned in general and on the other hand by the argument that they have "stood the test of time". Healthcare providers need to be aware of the CAM therapies their patients are using, as well as their potential side effects. Despite the demand for CAM, there is a paucity of well-founded evidence about its effectiveness. There are few good studies and those that exist are often inconclusive. CAM should be approached in the same way as some of orthodox medicine is evaluated now and how most, if not all, will be assessed in the future. Remedies, if shown to be effective and safe, should be part of the interventions made available to patients. Ineffective or unsafe therapies should be abandoned. Unproven interventions should be evaluated in high-quality clinical trials. CAM is often promoted and perceived to be entirely risk-free. However, it is not true: herbal remedies may induce liver damage, acupuncture may cause trauma of vital tissue, homeopathy may aggravate symptoms, etc. We all agree that rigorous research must be performed on this special area of asthma therapy in order to evaluate the real value and significance of CAM in the interest of our patients. (c) 2001 Prous Science. All rights reserved.