S Renet1, A de Chevigny2, S Hoacoglu3, A-L Belkarfa4, M Jardin-Szucs5, Y Bezie6, S Jouveshomme7. 1. Pharmacy department, groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185, rue Raymond-Losserand, 75014 Paris, France; Education and Training Research Center (ED 139 - EA 1589), University of Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France; Faculty of Pharmacy, Paris-Sud University, 5, rue Jean-Baptiste-Clément, 92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France. Electronic address: srenet@hpsj.fr. 2. Pharmacy department, groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185, rue Raymond-Losserand, 75014 Paris, France. Electronic address: adechevigny@hpsj.fr. 3. Pharmacy department, groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185, rue Raymond-Losserand, 75014 Paris, France. Electronic address: semahocaoglu@gmail.com. 4. Pharmacy department, groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185, rue Raymond-Losserand, 75014 Paris, France. Electronic address: anne-laure.belkarfa@u-psud.fr. 5. Pharmacy department, groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185, rue Raymond-Losserand, 75014 Paris, France. Electronic address: mjardin@hpsj.fr. 6. Pharmacy department, groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185, rue Raymond-Losserand, 75014 Paris, France. Electronic address: ybezie@hpsj.fr. 7. Pneumology and Thoracic department, groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185, rue Raymond-Losserand, 75014 Paris, France. Electronic address: sjouveshomme@hpsj.fr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) to improve their well-being. Little is known about real risks. OBJECTIVE: To highlight 3 different types of axes: 1/cancer patients' perceptions concerning CAM; 2/misinformation/miscommunication about CAM; 3/CAM toxicity (direct toxicity, CAM-anticancer drugs, CAM-cancer interactions). METHOD: A questionnaire was proposed to cancer patients for 2 months. The CAM toxicity was analyzed if patients documented their drugs and CAM. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients responded: 72/85 were taking≥1CAM. In total, 95% patients were satisfied. There was an increasing CAM intake after cancer diagnosis. One hundred and seventeen different CAM were identified (63 herbs, 24 essential oils, 28 food supplements, 2 homeopathic specialities). Only 30/85 were aware CAM could interact with anticancer drugs. No other type of risk was perceived. INFORMATION SOURCES: 43/85 Internet, 38/85 general practitioner, 38/85 community pharmacist, 32/85 entourage, 25/85 other patients, 22/85 oncologist. In total, 81.3% questioned healthcare professionals (HCP) about CAM. Twelve patients noticed HCP lacked knowledge regarding CAM. The toxicity analysis was carried out for 24 patients who consumed 1 to 24CAM. In total, 133CAM were reported, including 87 different CAM. For only 43CAM/87, studies were found. All patients presented≥1risk: 14 at risk of CAM-cancer interactions, 15 of CAM-anticancer drug interactions, 21 of CAM direct toxicities. CONCLUSION: Many CAM are used by patients. The diagnosis of cancer favors their use. The risks are manifold: low perception of risk that can be induced by CAM, diverse and insecure sources of information and many potential toxicities that are not scientifically documented.
INTRODUCTION:Cancerpatients use complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) to improve their well-being. Little is known about real risks. OBJECTIVE: To highlight 3 different types of axes: 1/cancerpatients' perceptions concerning CAM; 2/misinformation/miscommunication about CAM; 3/CAM toxicity (direct toxicity, CAM-anticancer drugs, CAM-cancer interactions). METHOD: A questionnaire was proposed to cancerpatients for 2 months. The CAM toxicity was analyzed if patients documented their drugs and CAM. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients responded: 72/85 were taking≥1CAM. In total, 95% patients were satisfied. There was an increasing CAM intake after cancer diagnosis. One hundred and seventeen different CAM were identified (63 herbs, 24 essential oils, 28 food supplements, 2 homeopathic specialities). Only 30/85 were aware CAM could interact with anticancer drugs. No other type of risk was perceived. INFORMATION SOURCES: 43/85 Internet, 38/85 general practitioner, 38/85 community pharmacist, 32/85 entourage, 25/85 other patients, 22/85 oncologist. In total, 81.3% questioned healthcare professionals (HCP) about CAM. Twelve patients noticed HCP lacked knowledge regarding CAM. The toxicity analysis was carried out for 24 patients who consumed 1 to 24CAM. In total, 133CAM were reported, including 87 different CAM. For only 43CAM/87, studies were found. All patients presented≥1risk: 14 at risk of CAM-cancer interactions, 15 of CAM-anticancer drug interactions, 21 of CAM direct toxicities. CONCLUSION: Many CAM are used by patients. The diagnosis of cancer favors their use. The risks are manifold: low perception of risk that can be induced by CAM, diverse and insecure sources of information and many potential toxicities that are not scientifically documented.
Keywords:
Complementary and alternative medicines; Interactions; Médecines alternatives et complémentaires; Perceptions; Risks evaluation; Évaluation des risques
Authors: Hui Xie; Jochen Rutz; Sebastian Maxeiner; Timothy Grein; Anita Thomas; Eva Juengel; Felix K-H Chun; Jindrich Cinatl; Axel Haferkamp; Igor Tsaur; Roman A Blaheta Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 6.575