Motivations of patients seeking supportive care for cancer from physicians prescribing homeopathic or conventional medicines: results of an observational cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The motivations of patients who consult a homeopathic (GP-Ho) or conventional (GP-CM) general practitioner for supportive care during cancer treatment have not been widely studied. We investigated the reasons why cancer patients consult a GP-Ho versus a GP-CM for supportive care and the GPs' motivations for their prescriptions. METHODS: This observational survey was carried out in France between October 2008 and October 2011. GPs across France were randomly selected and asked to recruit four cancer patients each. At inclusion, the sociodemographic and clinical (including psychological) characteristics and medical history of the patients were recorded by the GPs and the patients noted their quality of life (QoL) and anxiety/depression using the Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) self-questionnaires. The main motivations of the patients regarding the type of GP consultation and the main reasons for the GPs' prescriptions were recorded. RESULTS: Six hundred and forty four patients were included in the analysis: 399 consulted a GP-CM (n = 112) and 245 a GP-Ho (n = 73). Patients consulting a GP-Ho were more often female [OR = 1.93; 95%CI: 1.11-3.35; p = 0.02], employed in a professional capacity [OR = 6.57; 95%CI: 1.96-21.99; p = 0.002], have a shorter time since cancer diagnosis [OR = 2.19; 95%CI: 1.24-3.87; p = 0.007], have received targeted anticancer therapy [OR = 3.70; 95%CI: 1.67-8.18; p = 0.001] and have a high QLQ-C30 score for constipation [OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 1.00-1.02; p = 0.001]. Patients mainly consulted a GP-Ho to receive overall care (73.5% vs. 64.9%; p = 0.024) and medicines to prevent anticancer treatment-related side-effects (63.7% vs. 41.4%; p < 0.0001). In contrast, patients consulted a GP-CM to receive psychological care (50.1% vs. 40.8%; p = 0.021) and more information regarding the oncologists' strategic decisions (p < 0.0001). There was a significantly greater prescription of psychotropic drugs by GP-CM (53.7% vs. 22.4%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients consulting a GP-Ho or GP-CM had different motivations for seeking supportive care. There was a significantly greater prescription of psychotropic drugs by GP-CM.

Open-label observational study of the homeopathic medicine Passiflora Compose for anxiety and sleep disorders.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and sleep disorders (SDS) are frequently treated with psychotropic drugs. Health authorities in France have been advised to improve access to alternative treatments such as homeopathic medicines. Our aim was to describe the socio-demographic characteristics and clinical progression of patients prescribed homeopathic medicine Passiflora Compose (PC) for anxiety and/or SDS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was an open-label, observational study. Randomly selected general practitioners (GPs) known to prescribe homeopathic medicines recruited consecutive patients (≥18-years) prescribed PC. The following data were recorded at inclusion by the GP: socio-demographic data and anxiety severity (Hamilton anxiety rating scale or HAM-A); and by the patients: level of anxiety (STAI Spielberger self-assessment questionnaire) and SDS (Jenkins sleep scale or JSS). Anxiety and SDS were reassessed after 4 weeks of treatment using the same scales. RESULTS: A total of 639 patients (mean age: 46.3 ± 17.5 years; 78.6% female) were recruited by 98 GPs. Anxiety was present in 85.4% (HAM-A) and 93.3% (Spielberger State) at inclusion (mean scores: 17.8 ± 8.91 and 54.59 ± 11.69, respectively) and SDS was present in 74.0% (mean score: 15.24 ± 5.28). A total of 401 (62.7%) patients received PC alone and 167 (26.1%) PC + psychotropics. After 4 weeks, mean anxiety scores decreased by more than 7, 12 and 6 points (HAM-A, Spielberger State and Trait respectively), and SDS score by more than 4 points (JSS). CONCLUSION: Anxiety and/or SDS improved significantly in patients included on this study. PC could be an alternative to the use of psychotropic drugs for first intention treatment of anxiety and SDS. Further studies are needed to confirm those results.

Homeopathic treatment of migraine in children: results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines for the prevention and treatment of migraine in children. DESIGN: This was an observational, prospective, open, nonrandomized, noncomparative, multicenter study. SETTING/LOCATION: The study was conducted in 12 countries worldwide. SUBJECTS: Fifty-nine (59) physicians trained in the prescription of homeopathic medicines and 168 children, aged 5-15 years, with definite or probable migraine diagnosed using International Headache Society 2004 criteria were the subjects in this study. INTERVENTIONS: Physicians were given complete freedom in terms of treatment prescription; thus, prescriptions were individualized for each patient. OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency, intensity, and duration of migraine attacks in the 3 months prior to inclusion were compared with those during the 3-month follow-up period. Pertinent data were collected using questionnaires completed by the doctor and the patient or his/her parent/guardian. The secondary outcome measure was the impact of homeopathic medicines on education, measured as absence from school. RESULTS: The frequency, severity, and duration of migraine attacks decreased significantly during the 3-month follow-up period (all p<0.001). Preventive treatment during this time consisted of homeopathic medicines in 98% of cases (mean=2.6 medicines/patient). Children spent significantly less time off school during follow-up than before inclusion (2.0 versus 5.5 days, respectively; p<0.001). The most common preventive medicines used were Ignatia amara (25%; mainly 9C), Lycopodium clavatum (22%), Natrum muriaticum (21%), Gelsemium (20%), and Pulsatilla (12%; mainly 15C). Homeopathy alone was used for the treatment of migraine attacks in 38% of cases. The most commonly used medicines were Belladonna (32%; mainly 9C), Ignatia amara (11%; mainly 15C), Iris versicolor (10%; mainly 9C), Kalium phosphoricum (10%; mainly 9C), and Gelsemium (9%; mainly 15C and 30C). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate the interest of homeopathic medicines for the prevention and treatment of migraine attacks in children. A significant decrease in the frequency, severity, and duration of migraine attacks was observed and, consequently, reduced absenteeism from school.