Curcumin and proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia: a randomised, double blind controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of curcumin versus omeprazole in improving patient reported outcomes in people with dyspepsia. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind controlled trial, with central randomisation. SETTING: Thai traditional medicine hospital, district hospital, and university hospitals in Thailand. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with a diagnosis of functional dyspepsia. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were curcumin alone (C), omeprazole alone (O), or curcumin plus omeprazole (C+O). Patients in the combination group received two capsules of 250 mg curcumin, four times daily, and one capsule of 20 mg omeprazole once daily for 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional dyspepsia symptoms on days 28 and 56 were assessed using the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA) score. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of adverse events and serious adverse events. RESULTS: 206 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to one of the three groups; 151 patients completed the study. Demographic data (age 49.7±11.9 years; women 73.4%), clinical characteristics and baseline dyspepsia scores were comparable between the three groups. Significant improvements were observed in SODA scores on day 28 in the pain (-4.83, -5.46 and -6.22), non-pain (-2.22, -2.32 and -2.31) and satisfaction (0.39, 0.79 and 0.60) categories for the C+O, C, and O groups, respectively. These improvements were enhanced on day 56 in the pain (-7.19, -8.07 and -8.85), non-pain (-4.09, -4.12 and -3.71) and satisfaction (0.78, 1.07, and 0.81) categories in the C+O, C, and O groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed among the three groups and no serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Curcumin and omeprazole had comparable efficacy for functional dyspepsia with no obvious synergistic effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20221208003.

Acceptance and use of complementary and alternative medicine among medical specialists: a 15-year systematic review and data synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has gained popularity among the general population, but its acceptance and use among medical specialists have been inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies and synthesize survey data on the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases for the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. Each article was assessed by two screeners. Only survey studies relevant to the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists were reviewed. The pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. This review followed both PRISMA and SWiM guidelines. RESULTS: Of 5628 articles published between 2002 and 2017, 25 fulfilled the selection criteria. Ten medical specialties were included: Internal Medicine (11 studies), Pediatrics (6 studies), Obstetrics and Gynecology (6 studies), Anesthesiology (4 studies), Surgery (3 studies), Family Medicine (3 studies), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (3 studies), Psychiatry and Neurology (2 studies), Otolaryngology (1 study), and Neurological Surgery (1 study). The overall acceptance of CAM was 52% (95%CI, 42-62%). Family Medicine reported the highest acceptance, followed by Psychiatry and Neurology, Neurological Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Internal Medicine, and Surgery. The overall use of CAM was 45% (95% CI, 37-54%). The highest use of CAM was by the Obstetrics and Gynecology, followed by Family Medicine, Psychiatry and Neurology, Pediatrics, Otolaryngology, Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Surgery. Based on the studies, meta-regression showed no statistically significant difference across geographic regions, economic levels of the country, or sampling methods. CONCLUSION: Acceptance and use of CAM varied across medical specialists. CAM was accepted and used the most by Family Medicine but the least by Surgery. Findings from this systematic review could be useful for strategic harmonization of CAM and conventional medicine practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019125628.