Dataset Information

Potential Interactions of Biologically Based Complementary Medicine in Gynecological Oncology.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the potential risks of interactions between biologically based complementary and alternative medication (BB-CAM) and conventional drugs during systemic therapy in breast and gynecological cancer patients by analyzing the actual CAM-drug combinations from individual patients' records.

Methods

From September 2014 to December 2014 and from February 2017 to May 2017, all patients (n = 717) undergoing systemic therapy at the Gynecologic Oncology Day Care Unit in the Gynecology and Obstetrics Department of the Technical University of Munich, Germany, were asked to participate in a questionnaire about all their medications. To assess the potential risk of CAM-drug interactions (CDIs), we initially utilized the Lexicomp drug interaction database. This assessment was then expanded with a systematic search of other digital databases, such as the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, PubMed, and MEDLINE as well as the Cochrane Library.

Results

Among 448 respondents, 74.1% reported using BB-CAM simultaneously with their systemic therapy. The assessment showed 1 patient with a potentially clinically relevant CDI, where the interaction was based on a self-medicated combination of Echinacea and cyclophosphamide. Furthermore, 81 patients (18.1%) were thought to have interactions because of a combination of BB-CAMs and cytochrome P450 3A4-metabolized anticancer drugs.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrated high overall use of BB-CAMs by cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy. The analyses showed only 1 clinically relevant CDI.

SUBMITTER: Drozdoff L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6501502 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Potential Interactions of Biologically Based Complementary Medicine in Gynecological Oncology.

Drozdoff Loisa L Klein Evelyn E Kalder Matthias M Brambs Christine C Kiechle Marion M Paepke Daniela D

Integrative cancer therapies 20190101

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to assess the potential risks of interactions between biologically based complementary and alternative medication (BB-CAM) and conventional drugs during systemic therapy in breast and gynecological cancer patients by analyzing the actual CAM-drug combinations from individual patients' records.<h4>Methods</h4>From September 2014 to December 2014 and from February 2017 to May 2017, all patients (n = 717) undergoing systemic therapy at the Gynecologic Onc ...[more]

PMID: 31046491

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis are increasingly using complementary therapies and medicines (CM) to enhance the effectiveness of cancer treatment, manage treatment-related side effects, improve quality-of-life, and promote self-efficacy. In response to the increasing use and demand for CM by cancer patients, interest in the implementation of Integrative Oncology (IO) services that provide CM alongside conventional cancer care in Australia and abroad has developed. The extent that cancer services in Australia are integrating CM is uncertain. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify IO services in Australia and explore barriers and facilitators to IO service provision.MethodsA national, cross-sectional survey of healthcare organisations was conducted in 2016. Organisations in the public and private sectors, including not-for-profit organisations that provided cancer care in hospital or community setting, were included.ResultsA response rate of 93.2% was achieved (n = 275/295). Seventy-one organisations (25.8%) across all states/territories, except the Northern Territory, offered IO albeit in a limited amount by many. Most common IO services included massage, psychological-wellbeing, and movement modalities in hospital outpatient or inpatient settings. There were only a few instances where biological-based complementary medicine (CM) therapies were prescribed. Funding was often mixed, including patient contributions, philanthropy, funding by the organisation, and volunteer practitioners. Of the 204 non-IO providers, 80.9% had never provided any IO service. Overwhelmingly, the most common barrier to IO was a lack of funding, followed by uncertainty about patient demand, choice of services, and establishing such services. Less-common barriers were a lack of evidence, and support from oncologists or management. More funding, education and training, and building the evidence-base for CM were the most commonly suggested solutions.ConclusionIO is increasingly being provided in Australia, although service provision remains limited or non-existent in many areas. Mismatches appear to exist between low IO service provision, CM evidence, and high CM use by cancer patients. Greater strategic planning and policy guidance is indicated to ensure the appropriate provision of, and equitable access to IO services for all Australian cancer survivors.

Project description:IntroductionApproximately half of patients with cancer use some form of complementary medicine alongside conventional cancer treatment. The topic of complementary medicine often remains undiscussed in consultations between patients with cancer and their healthcare providers. This results in increased risks for adverse or interaction effects and decreased access to the benefits of evidence-based complementary medicine for patients with cancer. This paper describes the design of patient participatory study titled 'COMMON' that aims to explore and enhance open and effective communication about complementary medicine in oncology. The study is carried out in collaboration with 12 (former) patients with breast cancer as coresearchers.Methods and analysisThe study complies with the six steps of the intervention mapping framework. Three non-academic hospitals recruit participants (patients with cancer, oncology healthcare providers and managers) for interviews about the organisation, experiences and needs regarding complementary medicine. To assess communication about complementary medicine, recorded oncology consultations are analysed. For an overview of evidence-based complementary medicine available to patients with cancer, a review of reviews is conducted on the evidence on cancer patient-reported outcomes of complementary medicine frequently used by patients with cancer, supplemented with an online search and survey among organisations and persons providing complementary medicine to patients with cancer. Together, these steps generate input for the development of a toolbox that supports an open and effective discussion on complementary medicine in oncology. In a pilot study, acceptability and usability of the toolbox are assessed among patients with cancer and oncology healthcare providers. Dissemination of the toolbox is covered by the commitment of stakeholder parties.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Ethics Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen declared the study was exempted from formal approval under the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. The results will be disseminated through open-access, peer-reviewed publications, stakeholder-reporting and presentations at relevant conferences.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine similarities and differences in the reasons for using or not using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) amongst general and condition-specific populations, and amongst populations in each region of the globe.MethodsA literature search was performed on Pubmed, ScienceDirect and EMBASE.Keywords'herbal medicine' OR 'herbal and dietary supplement' OR 'complementary and alternative medicine' AND 'reason' OR 'attitude'. Quantitative or qualitative original articles in English, published between 2003 and 2018 were reviewed. Conference proceedings, pilot studies, protocols, letters, and reviews were excluded. Papers were appraised using valid tools and a 'risk of bias' assessment was also performed. Thematic analysis was conducted. Reasons were coded in each paper, then codes were grouped into categories. If several categories reported similar reasons, these were combined into a theme. Themes were then analysed using χ2 tests to identify the main factors related to reasons for CAM usage.Results231 publications were included. Reasons for CAM use amongst general and condition-specific populations were similar. The top three reasons for CAM use were: (1) having an expectation of benefits of CAM (84% of publications), (2) dissatisfaction with conventional medicine (37%) and (3) the perceived safety of CAM (37%). Internal health locus of control as an influencing factor was more likely to be reported in Western populations, whereas the social networks was a common factor amongst Asian populations (p < 0.05). Affordability, easy access to CAM and tradition were significant factors amongst African populations (p < 0.05). Negative attitudes towards CAM and satisfaction with conventional medicine (CM) were the main reasons for non-use (p < 0.05).ConclusionsDissatisfaction with CM and positive attitudes toward CAM, motivate people to use CAM. In contrast, satisfaction with CM and negative attitudes towards CAM are the main reasons for non-use.

Dataset Information

Potential Interactions of Biologically Based Complementary Medicine in Gynecological Oncology.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Potential Interactions of Biologically Based Complementary Medicine in Gynecological Oncology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets