Search

Simple Summary: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies include a wide range of procedures and products that are often used by cancer patients to directly combat cancer and to protect normal cells from the toxic effects of conventional therapies. Most often, their use is self-prescribed based on a collection of scattered information from websites and advice from relatives or friends. In this paper, we examined the potential known benefits and harms associated with the most commonly used alternative treatments to provide a practical guide for caregivers and patients. CAM is used by about 40% of cancer patients in Western Countries, with peaks of 80% for breast cancer patients. Cancer patients use CAM to boost immune function, to control cancer symptoms and treatment-related side effects, and to improve health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and survival. Unfortunately, self-prescription of natural remedies in cancer patients can lead to unexpected toxicities and can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapy. Although CAM usually refers to all the "natural or organic" products/methods that are generally considered less toxic, there are concerns about drug interactions, especially in patients participating in clinical trials with experimental agents. Despite the claims of the promising and potential benefits made by prescribers, many CAMs lack clear scientific evidence of their safety and efficacy. Given the widespread use of CAM—both clearly declared and overt—in this review, we focused on the most important known data on the risk of interactions between biologics and oncology drugs with the goal of opening up CAM in accordance with the meaning of integrative medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Despite substantial progress in the treatment of hepatitis C through the use of direct-acting antivirals which have been shown to cure the disease, complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are popular among patients as a substitute or complement of allopathic medicines. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of patients and CAM practitioners on the use of CAM for the treatment of hepatitis C in Pakistan. Methods. A cross-sectional design was adopted. Participants (CAM practitioners and patients) were recruited from the capital and two provinces: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab of Pakistan. A survey using paper-based questionnaires, each specific for patients and CAM practitioners, was conducted to gather information pertaining to demography, disease status, treatment history, and participants' perspectives (about the disease, reasons to switch to CAM, and referring source). Results. A total of 417 respondents (n = 284 patients, n = 133 practitioners) were recruited. Of the total patients, 170 (59.9%) had started CAM during the previous three months. There were 168 (59.2%) of the total patients who had used allopathic treatments for hepatitis C prior to their use of CAM. The confidence in CAM (24.6%), high cost (19%), and unbearable side effects (52.1%) of allopathic medicines were the main reasons to switch to CAM treatment. Majority (49.3%) of the patients were referred to CAM on the recommendations of relatives or care givers (17.3%) whereas only 9.5% were referred by health care professionals. Out of 133 practitioners, 48 (36.1%) were practicing herbal medicines. From practitioners' perspectives, club-moss (Lycopodium clavatum) was the best treatment option for hepatitis C. The majority, 73 (54.9%), of the patients had chosen to use CAM because of the side effects of allopathic medicines. Patients who had previous "good experience" with CAM were the most common referral source (56.4%) for CAM use in hepatitis C. Conclusions. Patients' beliefs in CAM, side effects of allopathic therapy, high cost of allopathic medicines, and referrals from previous CAM users are key factors in the switching of hepatitis C patients to CAM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]