Is complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) cost-effective? a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket expenditures of over $34 billion per year in the US are an apparent testament to a widely held belief that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies have benefits that outweigh their costs. However, regardless of public opinion, there is often little more than anecdotal evidence on the health and economic implications of CAM therapies. The objectives of this study are to present an overview of economic evaluation and to expand upon a previous review to examine the current scope and quality of CAM economic evaluations. METHODS: The data sources used were Medline, AMED, Alt-HealthWatch, and the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Citation Index; January 1999 to October 2004. Papers that reported original data on specific CAM therapies from any form of standard economic analysis were included. Full economic evaluations were subjected to two types of quality review. The first was a 35-item checklist for reporting quality, and the second was a set of four criteria for study quality (randomization, prospective collection of economic data, comparison to usual care, and no blinding). RESULTS: A total of 56 economic evaluations (39 full evaluations) of CAM were found covering a range of therapies applied to a variety of conditions. The reporting quality of the full evaluations was poor for certain items, but was comparable to the quality found by systematic reviews of economic evaluations in conventional medicine. Regarding study quality, 14 (36%) studies were found to meet all four criteria. These exemplary studies indicate CAM therapies that may be considered cost-effective compared to usual care for various conditions: acupuncture for migraine, manual therapy for neck pain, spa therapy for Parkinson's, self-administered stress management for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, pre- and post-operative oral nutritional supplementation for lower gastrointestinal tract surgery, biofeedback for patients with "functional" disorders (eg, irritable bowel syndrome), and guided imagery, relaxation therapy, and potassium-rich diet for cardiac patients. CONCLUSION: Whereas the number and quality of economic evaluations of CAM have increased in recent years and more CAM therapies have been shown to be of good value, the majority of CAM therapies still remain to be evaluated

Effectiveness, quality of life, and cost of caring for children in France with recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis managed by homeopathic or non-homeopatic general practionners.

International audienceBackground & ObjectiveIn France, non-homeopathic general practitioners (GPs) often use antibacterials to treat children with recurrent acute viral rhinopharyngitis; whereas homeopathic GPs tend to use homeopathic medicines. We compared the effectiveness, the quality of life of the parents, and the direct and indirect costs associated with treatment from homeopathic and non-homeopathic GPs.MethodWe assessed the direct (consultations, medicines, further tests) and indirect (time off work) costs of the two types of treatment to society, the patient, and social security. We also assessed the effectiveness of the treatment received and the quality of life of the parents.ResultsOf the 499 children included, 231 were treated by 62 non-homeopathic GPs and 268 by 73 homeopathic GPs. The effectiveness (assessed as complications/patient, total number of adverse events, and quality of life) [mean overall Parents of children with Ear, Nose, and Throat infections Quality of Life questionnaire© scale score] was better in the homeopathic GP group than in the non-homeopathic GP group. No significant difference was found between the two groups for the total costs to social security (€98.55 for homeopathic GPs vs €96.17 for non-homeopathic GPs). Homeopathic GPs initiated preventive treatment in 82.2% of their patients and used antibacterials in 20.9% of their patients, while non-homeopathic GPs initiated preventive treatment in 43.3% of patients and prescribed antibacterials for 89.6% of patients.ConclusionThis study produced new findings that indicate that, in France, acute rhinopharyngitis is handled differently by homeopathic GPs and non-homeopathic GPs: homeopathic GPs prescribe fewer antibacterials than non-homeopathic GPs for the treatment of recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis in children aged between 18 months and 4 years. Moreover, homeopathic treatment gave better results in terms of pragmatic medical effectiveness (fewer episodes and fewer complications) and the parents’ quality of life, with similar total medical costs to social security. However, this study is potentially biased by the lack of homogeneity of the two patient-samples in terms of the ‘passive smoking’, ‘patient age’, ‘childcare’, and ‘type of occupation’ criteria because our study protocol did not provide for prior matching of the two patient-samples with respect to these criteria. The observations found in this study need to be confirmed by randomized clinical trials