Mapping patterns of complementary and alternative medicine use in cancer: An explorative cross-sectional study of individuals with reported positive "exceptional" experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among cancer patients is common and widespread, levels of commitment to CAM vary. "Committed" CAM use is important to investigate, as it may be associated with elevated risks and benefits, and may affect use of biomedically-oriented health care (BHC). Multiple methodological approaches were used to explore and map patterns of CAM use among individuals postulated to be committed users, voluntarily reporting exceptional experiences associated with CAM use after cancer diagnosis.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>The verbatim transcripts of thirty-eight unstructured interviews were analyzed in two steps. First, manifest content analysis was used to elucidate and map participants' use of CAM, based on the National Center for Complementary Medicine (NCCAM)'s classification system. Second, patterns of CAM use were explored statistically using principal component analysis.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>The 38 participants reported using a total of 274 specific CAM (median = 4) consisting of 148 different therapeutic modalities. Most reported therapies could be categorized using the NCCAM taxonomy (n = 224). However, a significant number of CAM therapies were not consistent with this categorization (n = 50); consequently, we introduced two additional categories: <it>Spiritual/health literature </it>and <it>Treatment centers</it>. The two factors explaining the largest proportion of variation in CAM usage patterns were a) number of CAM modalities used and b) a category preference for <it>Energy therapies </it>over the categories <it>Alternative Medical Systems </it>and <it>Treatment centers </it>or vice versa.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We found considerable heterogeneity in patterns of CAM use. By analyzing users' own descriptions of CAM in relation to the most commonly used predefined professional taxonomy, this study highlights discrepancies between user and professional conceptualizations of CAM not previously addressed. Beyond variations in users' reports of CAM, our findings indicate some patterns in CAM usage related to number of therapies used and preference for different CAM categories.</p

The Brain-Specific Beta4 Subunit Downregulates BK Channel Cell Surface Expression

The large-conductance K+ channel (BK channel) can control neural excitability, and enhanced channel currents facilitate high firing rates in cortical neurons. The brain-specific auxiliary subunit β4 alters channel Ca++- and voltage-sensitivity, and β4 knock-out animals exhibit spontaneous seizures. Here we investigate β4's effect on BK channel trafficking to the plasma membrane. Using a novel genetic tag to track the cellular location of the pore-forming BKα subunit in living cells, we find that β4 expression profoundly reduces surface localization of BK channels via a C-terminal ER retention sequence. In hippocampal CA3 neurons from C57BL/6 mice with endogenously high β4 expression, whole-cell BK channel currents display none of the characteristic properties of BKα+β4 channels observed in heterologous cells. Finally, β4 knock-out animals exhibit a 2.5-fold increase in whole-cell BK channel current, indicating that β4 also regulates current magnitude in vivo. Thus, we propose that a major function of the brain-specific β4 subunit in CA3 neurons is control of surface trafficking

Weathering the seasons of cancer survivorship: mind-body therapy use and reported reasons and outcomes by stages of cancer survivorship

PURPOSE: Mind-body therapies (MBT), a subset of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), are used by cancer survivors to manage symptoms related to their cancer experience. MBT use may differ by cancer survivorship stage (i.e., acute, short-term, long-term) because each stage presents varying intensities of medical activities, associated emotions, and treatment effects. We examined the relationship between MBT use and survivorship stage (acute: <1 year; short-term: 1 to 5 years; long-term: >5 years since diagnosis) using the CAM supplement of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. We also examined reported reasons for and outcomes of MBT use and frequency of MBT types. METHODS: The sample included cancer survivors (N= 3076) and non-cancer controls (N= 31,387). Logistic regression tested the relationship of MBT use and survivorship stage. Weighted percentages were calculated by survivorship stage for reported reasons and outcomes of use, and frequency of MBT types. RESULTS: MBT use varied by cancer survivorship stage (p = 0.02): acute (8.3%), short-term (15.4%), long-term (11.7%) survivorship, and non-cancer controls (13.2%). In the adjusted model, short-term survivors had 35% greater odds of MBT use than controls (95% CI: 1.00, 1.83). Reasons for and outcomes of MBT use varied among the survivorship stages, with more acute survivors reporting medical-related reasons and more short-term survivors reporting to manage symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: MBT may fulfill different symptom management needs at varying stages of survivorship. These findings can help inform supportive care services of survivors’ use of MBT for symptom burden at each stage and the allocation of these services

Provider and Patient Expectations for Dietary Supplement Discussions

BACKGROUND: Dietary supplement use in the United States is common. Patients can procure supplements without a prescription, and often do not disclose supplement use to their healthcare providers. Providers and patients may be uncertain about what would be appropriate or helpful in discussions of supplements during routine office visits. OBJECTIVE: To explore provider and patient expectations for discussions of dietary supplements. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of healthcare providers from three specialties and their patients who reported taking supplements. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five outpatient providers (14 primary care, six integrative medicine, and 15 complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers) and 107 of their patients. APPROACH: Qualitative analysis of transcripts using grounded theory and iterative review. RESULTS: Both providers and patients raised twelve common topics about dietary supplements that they felt were important to discuss during office visits, such as: supplements taken; supplement risks (interactions, safety/harm, side effects/adverse events); treatment benefits; efficacy; alternative treatments; and patient expectations/preferences for treatment. Some topics were mentioned more frequently by providers than patients, such as how to take, reason for taking, and evidence for use. Providers raised several topics that were mentioned infrequently by patients. Supplement costs and regulations were not brought up by any patients, even though consideration of these topics could influence patient decisions to take supplements. Complementary healthcare providers brought up topics not mentioned by primary care providers, such as the importance of supplement brands and supplement mega-dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers have concordant views about the need to discuss patient supplement use and ensure patient safety. Patients may undervalue, be unaware of, or discount information about cost or regulations that could affect their decision-making about supplement use. Future studies could examine the value, acceptability, and influence of a more comprehensive approach to discussions to help patients appropriately evaluate supplements