Complementary and Integrative Medicine Prevalence and Utilization in International Military and Veteran Settings and Communities: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Active duty military personnel and veterans have unique and complex health needs, with the high demands of military life often leading to chronic physical and mental health conditions. Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) could be a possible solution to this problem. Some military health systems have started integrating CIM into health care delivery. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of the prevalence and utilization of CIM in military and veteran populations globally.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols protocol was used to systematically search for original research assessing the prevalence and utilization of CIM among active serving military or veterans. CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, and AMED databases were searched up to February 3, 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The overall quality of evidence was high with a low risk of bias. Utilization of CIM varied. The lowest utilization demonstrated that only 1.9% of services delivered by military health system were CIM. The majority of studies found utilization rates between 30% and 80%, with some studies reporting use as high as 90%. The most commonly used CIM therapies included chiropractic care, massage, mindfulness/meditation, and acupuncture. Utilization of CIM products was high and ranged from 32% to 87%. The most frequently used products were dietary supplements, particularly multivitamins and minerals and protein supplements/amino acids. The use of herbal products was high among veterans ranging from 10% to 79%.

CONCLUSIONS

The high demand for CIM by military personnel and veterans has important implications for policy, funding allocation, and integration of these services into clinical practice, particularly by countries not currently doing so. Further research is needed to assess the implementation of CIM into real-world settings to explore barriers and facilitators for their use in clinical practice and, by extension, their integration into the wider health care system.

Unauthorized ingredients in "nootropic" dietary supplements: A review of the history, pharmacology, prevalence, international regulations, and potential as doping agents

The first nootropic prohibited in sport was fonturacetam (4-phenylpiracetam, carphedon) in 1998. Presented here 25 years later is a broad-scale consideration of the history, pharmacology, prevalence, regulations, and doping potential of nootropics viewed through a lens of 50 selected dietary supplements (DS) marketed as "cognitive enhancement," "brain health," "brain boosters," or "nootropics," with a focus on unauthorized ingredients. Nootropic DS have risen to prominence over the last decade often as multicomponent formulations of bioactive ingredients presenting compelling pharmacological questions and potential public health concerns. Many popular nootropics are unauthorized food or DS ingredients according to the European Commission including huperzine A, yohimbine, and dimethylaminoethanol; unapproved pharmaceuticals like phenibut or emoxypine (mexidol); previously registered drugs like meclofenoxate or reserpine; EU authorized pharmaceuticals like piracetam or vinpocetine; infamous doping agents like methylhexaneamine or dimethylbutylamine; and other investigational substances and peptides. Several are authorized DS ingredients in the United States resulting in significant global variability as to what qualifies as a legal nootropic. Prohibited stimulants or ß2-agonists commonly used in "pre-workout," "weight loss," or "thermogenic" DS such as octodrine, hordenine, or higenamine are often stacked with nootropic substances. While stimulants and ß2-agonists are defined as doping agents by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), many nootropics are not, although some may qualify as non-approved substances or related substances under catch-all language in the WADA Prohibited List. Synergistic combinations, excessive dosing, or recently researched pharmacology may justify listing certain nootropics as doping agents or warrant additional attention in future regulations.