Rachel Firkins1, Hannah Eisfeld1, Christina Keinki1, Jens Buentzel2, Andreas Hochhaus1, Thorsten Schmidt3, Jutta Huebner4. 1. Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. 2. Südharz Klinikum Nordhausen, Klinik für HNO-Erkrankungen, Kopf-Hals-Chirurgie, Interdisziplinäre Palliativstation, Dr.-Robert-Koch-Straße 39, 99734, Nordhausen, Germany. 3. Krebszentrum Nord, CCC, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Haus 14, 24105, Kiel, Germany. 4. Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. jutta.huebner@med.uni-jena.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from cancer often make use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Only few data exist on the prevalence and clinical significance of interactions of a biological CAM method and conventional drugs. METHODS: From February 2014 to March 2016, consecutive patients from five oncological practices in Germany were asked to fulfill a standardized questionnaire regarding use of CAM. Data on diagnosis, date of first diagnosis, ECOG and the past and current treatment were derived from the patients' files. Interactions were evaluated by systematically using a database on potential interactions. RESULTS: From 1000 patients asked to participate, we received a total of 720 questionnaires of which 711 were completed and eligible for evaluation. 29% of the patients reported any CAM usage. Women showed a significantly higher use of CAM with 35.6 versus 23.6% of men. For 54.9% of CAM users (15.9% of all patients), we found a combination of conventional drugs and biological based CAM methods with a risk for interactions. Vitamins A, C and E were the most frequently used CAM substances in these cases (39.3%), followed by herbs with 17.5%. CONCLUSION: There was a risk of interactions between a biological CAM method and conventional drugs in 54.9% of the patients using CAM. To raise knowledge on interactions a better training for doctors with respect to CAM is strongly needed. Furthermore, patients' awareness should also be raised and communication between physician and patient on the topic improved.
BACKGROUND:Patients suffering from cancer often make use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Only few data exist on the prevalence and clinical significance of interactions of a biological CAM method and conventional drugs. METHODS: From February 2014 to March 2016, consecutive patients from five oncological practices in Germany were asked to fulfill a standardized questionnaire regarding use of CAM. Data on diagnosis, date of first diagnosis, ECOG and the past and current treatment were derived from the patients' files. Interactions were evaluated by systematically using a database on potential interactions. RESULTS: From 1000 patients asked to participate, we received a total of 720 questionnaires of which 711 were completed and eligible for evaluation. 29% of the patients reported any CAM usage. Women showed a significantly higher use of CAM with 35.6 versus 23.6% of men. For 54.9% of CAM users (15.9% of all patients), we found a combination of conventional drugs and biological based CAM methods with a risk for interactions. Vitamins A, C and E were the most frequently used CAM substances in these cases (39.3%), followed by herbs with 17.5%. CONCLUSION: There was a risk of interactions between a biological CAM method and conventional drugs in 54.9% of the patients using CAM. To raise knowledge on interactions a better training for doctors with respect to CAM is strongly needed. Furthermore, patients' awareness should also be raised and communication between physician and patient on the topic improved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer drugs; Complementary and alternative medicine; Interactions; Patient–physician communication
Authors: Carmen Loquai; Dagmar Dechent; Marlene Garzarolli; Martin Kaatz; Katharina C Kaehler; Peter Kurschat; Frank Meiss; Annette Stein; Dorothee Nashan; Oliver Micke; Ralph Muecke; Karsten Muenstedt; Christoph Stoll; Irene Schmidtmann; Jutta Huebner Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: M A Hillen; H C J M de Haes; L J A Stalpers; J H G Klinkenbijl; E H Eddes; P N Butow; J van der Vloodt; H W M van Laarhoven; E M A Smets Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J Kleine Wortmann; A Bremer; H T Eich; H P Kleine Wortmann; A Schuster; J Fühner; J Büntzel; R Muecke; F J Prott; J Huebner Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: J Hübner; K Muenstedt; R Muecke; O Micke; C Stoll; U R Kleeberg; J Buentzel; G Dennert; F J Prott Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Carmen Loquai; Irene Schmidtmann; Marlene Garzarolli; Martin Kaatz; Katharina C Kähler; Peter Kurschat; Frank Meiss; Oliver Micke; Ralph Muecke; Karsten Muenstedt; Dorothee Nashan; Annette Stein; Christoph Stoll; Dagmar Dechent; Jutta Huebner Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: T Zeller; K Muenstedt; C Stoll; J Schweder; B Senf; E Ruckhaeberle; S Becker; H Serve; J Huebner Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Jutta Huebner; Karsten Muenstedt; Franz J Prott; Christoph Stoll; Oliver Micke; Jens Buentzel; Ralph Muecke; Bianca Senf Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: B Pourroy; C Letellier; A Helvig; B Chanet; F De Crozals; C Alessandra Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Christian Keinki; Emadaldin Ahmadi; Karin Kastrati; Bijan Zomorodbakhsch; Jutta Hübner Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Noël M Arring; Denise Millstine; Debra L Barton; Karen S Lyons; Marlene Girardo; Amy Hutson; Lillian M Nail Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: F Ranchon; C Rioufol; H Prely; C Herledan; A G Caffin; A Baudouin; V Larbre; M Maire; V Schwiertz; N Vantard Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Jutta Hübner; Matthias Beckmann; Markus Follmann; Monika Nothacker; Franz Josef Prott; Bernhard Wörmann Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 8.251