Safety of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) treatment among children and young adults who suffer from adverse effects of conventional cancer treatment: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is widely used around the world to treat adverse effects derived from cancer treatment among children and young adults. Parents often seek CAM to restore and maintain the child's physical and emotional condition during and after cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were (i) to identify literature that investigates CAM use for treating adverse effects of conventional cancer treatment, (ii) to investigate the safety of the included CAM modalities, and (iii) to evaluate the quality of included studies. METHODS: Five scientific research databases were used to identify observational, quasi-experimental, and qualitative studies from January 1990 to May 2021. Included studies investigated the use of CAM to treat adverse effects of cancer treatment in childhood cancer. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in this review. Ten quasi-experimental, 3 observational studies (longitudinal/prospective), 2 qualitative studies, and 1 study with a quasi-experimental and qualitative arm were identified. Less than half (n = 6; 40%) of the studies included reported adverse effects for the CAM modality being studied. Among the studies that reported adverse effects, they were mostly considered as direct risk, as 13% reported mainly bleeding and bruising upon acupuncture treatment, and dizziness with yoga treatment. All adverse effects were assessed as minor and transient. CAM modalities identified for treating adverse effects of cancer treatment were alternative medical systems, manipulative and body-based therapies, biologically-based therapies, and mind-body therapies. CAM modalities were used to alleviate anxiety, pain, toxicity, prevent trauma, and improve health-related quality of life, functional mobility, and physical activity levels. All studies assessed scored 70% or above according to the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal for study quality checklists. CONCLUSION: Most of the studies (58.3%) included in this review did not report adverse effects from CAM modalities used to treat adverse effects of cancer treatment in children and young adults. This lack of safety information is of concern because parents need to know whether the modality represents an extra burden or harm to the child. To improve awareness about safety in the field, a universal and uniform reporting system for adverse effects in CAM research is needed.

Complementary and alternative medicine modalities used to treat adverse effects of anti-cancer treatment among children and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Dealing with the symptom burden of cancer diagnosis and treatment has led parents to seek different self-management strategies including Alternative and Complementary Medicine (CAM). The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis about the use and effect of CAM modalities to treat adverse effects of conventional cancer treatment among children and young adults. METHODS: Six scientific research databases were used to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1990 to September 2020. Included studies investigated the use of CAM to treat cancer treatment related adverse effects in children and young adults compared to controls. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs comprising 1,069 participants were included in this review. The included studies investigated acupuncture, mind-body therapies, supplements, and vitamins for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), oral mucositis, and anxiety among children and young adults who underwent conventional cancer treatment. Seven studies (315 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall effect of CAM (including acupuncture and hypnosis only) on chemotherapy-induced nausea and/or vomiting and controls was statistically significant with a standard mean difference of -0.54, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.31] I2 = 0% (p < 0.00001). There was a significant difference between acupuncture and controls (n = 5) for intensity and/or episodes of CINV with an SMD -0.59, 95% CI [-0.85, -0.33] (p < 0.00001). No significant difference was found between hypnosis and controls (n = 2) for severity or episodes of CINV with an SMD -0.41, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.27] I2 = 41% (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: Current evidence from this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows that CAM, including acupuncture and hypnosis only, is effective in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children and young adults. More rigorous trials and long-term effects should be investigated if acupuncture and hypnosis are to be recommended for clinical use.

Adverse effects in homeopathy. A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Almost all health care interventions have the potential to be associated with risk to patient safety. Different terminologies are used to define treatment induced risk to patient safety and a common definition is the term adverse effect. Beyond the concept of adverse effect and specific to homeopathy is the concept of homeopathic aggravation. Homeopathic aggravation describes a transient worsening of the patients' symptoms, which is not understood as an adverse effect. In order to ensure patient safety within a homeopathic treatment setting, it is important to identify adverse effects, as well as homeopathic aggravations, even though it may be challenging to distinguish between these two concepts. To date there is an obvious lack of systematic information on how adverse effects and homeopathic aggravations are reported in studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses on observational studies, as a substantial amount of the research base for homeopathy are observational. METHOD: Eight electronic databases, central webpages and journals were searched for eligible studies. The searches were limited from the year 1995 to January 2020. The filters used were observational studies, human, English and German language. Adverse effects and homeopathic aggravations were identified and graded according to The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE). Meta-analysis was performed separately for adverse effects and homeopathic aggravations. RESULTS: A total of 1,169 studies were identified, 41 were included in this review. Eighteen studies were included in a meta-analysis that made an overall comparison between homeopathy and control (conventional medicine and herbs). Eighty-seven percent (n = 35) of the studies reported adverse effects. They were graded as CTCAE 1, 2 or 3 and equally distributed between the intervention and control groups. Homeopathic aggravations were reported in 22,5% (n = 9) of the studies and graded as CTCAE 1 or 2. The frequency of adverse effects for control versus homeopathy was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). Analysis of sub-groups indicated that, compared to homeopathy, the number of adverse effects was significantly higher for conventional medicine (P = 0.0001), as well as other complementary therapies (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Adverse effects of homeopathic remedies are consistently reported in observational studies, while homeopathic aggravations are less documented. This meta-analysis revealed that the proportion of patients experiencing adverse effects was significantly higher when receiving conventional medicine and herbs, compared to patients receiving homeopathy. Nonetheless, the development and implementation of a standardized reporting system of adverse effects in homeopathic studies is warranted in order to facilitate future risk assessments.

An integrative review on the information and communication needs of parents of children with cancer regarding the use of complementary and alternative medicine.

BACKGROUND: Parents often choose Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) as a supportive agent with the aim to reduce cancer treatment-related symptoms in their children. Therefore, it is necessary to understand parents´ information and communication needs regarding CAM. The aim of the present study was to review the research literature as to identify the information and communication needs of parents of children with cancer, and the children themselves, regarding the use of CAM. METHODS: An integrative systematic review design was chosen. Searches were performed in AMED, CAMbase, CINAHL (Ebsco), EMBASE, PubMed and PsycInfo, Theme eJournals and Karger. The search was limited to studies published in English, German, Dutch, and the Scandinavian languages. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened the title and abstracts of the relevant papers. A data extraction form and critical appraisal checklists were used to extract data for analysis, and a mixed methods synthesis was applied. RESULTS: Out of 24 studies included, 67% were of quantitative and 33% of qualitative study design. Five main themes emerged from the analysis of 21 studies: Information on CAM, sources of CAM information, communication about CAM, informed decision-making on CAM, and Risk/benefit of CAM. The majority of the parents did not disclose the CAM use of their children because they feared negative reactions from the attending oncologist. To make informed treatment decisions for their children, parents wanted unbiased information about CAM and would act accordingly. They demand open communication about these modalities and respect for the family's autonomy when choosing CAM for their children. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for parents of children with cancer for high quality information on CAM from reliable and scientific sources. Development of authoritative evidence-based decision tools is thus warranted to enable health care professionals and parents of children with cancer to make well informed, individual decisions concerning CAM.