Impact of physician preferences for homeopathic or conventional medicines on patients with musculoskeletal disorders: results from the EPI3-MSD cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effect of physician practicing preferences (PPP) in primary care for homeopathy (Ho), CAM (Complementary and alternative medicines) with conventional medicine (Mx) or exclusively conventional medicine (CM) on patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), with reference to clinical progression, drug consumption, side effects and loss of therapeutic opportunity. METHODS: The EPI3-MSD study was a nationwide observational cohort of a representative sample of general practitioners (GP) and their patients in France. Recruitment of GP was stratified by PPP, which was self-declared. Diagnoses and comorbidities were recorded by GP at inclusion. Patients completed a standardized telephone interview at inclusion, one, three and twelve months, including MSD-functional scales and medication consumption. RESULTS: 1153 MSD patients were included in the three PPP groups. Patients did not differ between groups except for chronicity of MSDs (>12 weeks), which was higher in the Ho group (62.1%) than in the CM (48.6%) and Mx groups (50.3%). The twelve-month development of specific functional scores was identical across the three groups after controlling for baseline score (p > 0.05). After adjusting for propensity scores, NSAID use over 12 months was almost half in the Ho group (OR, 0.54; 95%CI, 0.38-0.78) as compared to the CM group; no difference was found in the Mx group (OR, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.59-1.15). CONCLUSION: MSD patients seen by homeopathic physicians showed a similar clinical progression when less exposed to NSAID in comparison to patients seen in CM practice, with fewer NSAID-related adverse events and no loss of therapeutic opportunity.

Who seeks primary care for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) with physicians prescribing homeopathic and other complementary medicine? Results from the EPI3-LASER survey in France.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information describing patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) using complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and almost none distinguishing homeopathy from other CAMs. The objective of this study was to describe and compare patients with MSDs who consulted primary care physicians, either certified homeopaths (Ho) or regular prescribers of CAMs in a mixed practice (Mx), to those consulting physicians who strictly practice conventional medicine (CM), with regard to the severity of their MSD expressed as chronicity, co-morbidity and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: The EPI3-LASER study was a nationwide observational survey of a representative sample of general practitioners and their patients in France. The sampling strategy ensured a sufficient number of GPs in each of the three groups to allow comparison of their patients. Patients completed a questionnaire on socio-demographics, lifestyle and QOL using the Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire. Chronicity of MSDs was defined as more than twelve weeks duration of the current episode. Diagnoses and co-morbidities were recorded by the physician. RESULTS: A total of 825 GPs included 1,692 MSD patients (predominantly back pain and osteoarthritis) were included, 21.6% in the CM group, 32.4% Ho and 45.9% Mx. Patients in the Ho group had more often a chronic MSD (62.1%) than the CM (48.6%) or Mx (50.3%) groups, a result that was statistically significant after controlling for patients' characteristics (Odds ratio = 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07 - 1.89). Patients seen by homeopaths or mixed practice physicians who were not the regular treating physician, had more often a chronic MSD than those seen in conventional medicine (Odds ratios were 1.75; 95% CI: 1.22 - 2.50 and 1.48; 95% CI: 1.06 - 2.12, respectively). Otherwise patients in the three groups did not differ for co-morbidities and QOL. CONCLUSION: MSD patients consulting primary care physicians who prescribed homeopathy and CAMs differed from those seen in conventional medicine. Chronic MSD patients represented a greater proportion of the clientele in physicians offering alternatives to conventional medicine. In addition, these physicians treated chronic patients as consulting rather than regular treating physicians, with potentially important impacts upon professional health care practices and organisation.

Complementary and alternative approaches to the treatment of persistent musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVE: To review common complementary and alternative treatment modalities for the treatment of persistent musculoskeletal pain in older adults. METHODS: A critical review of the literature on acupuncture and related modalities, herbal therapies, homeopathy, and spinal manipulation was carried out. Review included 678 cases within 21 randomized trials and 2 systematic reviews of herbal therapies: 798 cases within 2 systematic reviews of homeopathy; 1,059 cases within 1 systematic review of spinal manipulation for low back pain, and 419 cases within 4 randomized controlled trials for neck pain. The review of acupuncture and related modalities was based upon a paucity of well-controlled studies combined with our clinical experience. RESULTS: Insufficient experimental evidence exists to recommend the use of traditional Chinese acupuncture over other modalities for older adults with persistent musculoskeletal pain. Promising preliminary evidence exists to support the use of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for persistent low back pain. While some herbals appear to have modest analgesic benefits, insufficient evidence exists to definitively recommend their use. Drug-herb interactions must also be considered. Some evidence exists to support the superiority of homeopathic remedies over placebo for treating osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. The benefits of spinal manipulation for persistent low back and neck pain have not been convincingly shown to outweigh its risks. DISCUSSION: While the use of complementary and alternative modalities for the treatment of persistent musculoskeletal pain continues to increase, rigorous clinical trials examining their efficacy are needed before definitive recommendations regarding the application of these modalities can be made.

Effectiveness of CAM therapy: understanding the evidence.

By definition, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) attempts to diagnose and treat illnesses in unconventional ways. CAM has been classified as: (1) alternative medical systems (eg, traditional Chinese medicine [including acupuncture], naturopathic medicine, ayurvedic medicine, and homeopathy); (2) biologic-based therapies (eg, herbal, special dietary, and individual biologic treatments); (3) energy therapies (eg, Reiki, therapeutic touch, magnet therapy, Qi Gong, and intercessory prayer); (4) manipulative and body-based systems (eg, chiropractic, osteopathy, and massage); and (5) mind-body interventions (eg, meditation, biofeedback, hypnotherapy, and the relaxation response). This review focuses on how to assess the effectiveness of CAM therapies for chronic musculoskeletal pains, emphasizing the role of specific and nonspecific analgesic mechanisms, including placebo.