Oral Complementary Medicine Use among People with Inflammatory Arthritis: An Australian Rheumatology Association Database Analysis

Prevalence and correlates of the use of complementary and alternative medicines among older adults with joint pain

BACKGROUND

There is increasing use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) alone or as an adjuvant therapy to conventional medicines in osteoarthritis (OA) patients.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe the prevalence and correlates of the use of CAMs among community-dwelling older adults.

METHODS

Data from the Tasmania Older Adult Cohort Study (TASOAC, n = 1099) were used to describe the prevalence of CAM use. Correlates of CAM use were assessed by comparing CAM users and non-users. To further assess correlates of CAM use, participants with at least one joint with pain were classified into four categories: CAM-only, analgesics-only, co-therapy, and "neither CAMs nor analgesics" (NCNA).

RESULTS

In all, 385 (35.0%) of our participants reported use of CAMs, among which vitamins/minerals were used most (22.6%, n = 232). Compared with CAM non-users, CAM users were more likely to be female, were less likely to be overweight, were better educated, had more joints with OA, had fewer WOMAC scores, and did more steps per day. Among participants with any joint pain, the CAM-only group were less likely to be overweight, consumed more alcohol, had higher quality of life, had more steps per day, and had fewer pain-related symptoms compared with the analgesic-only group.

CONCLUSION

Complementary and alternative medicines were commonly used among Tasmanian older adults, with 35% of the population using CAMs either alone or in combination with conventional analgesics. CAM users were more likely to be female, be better educated, have more joints with OA, and had healthier lifestyles, including lower body mass index and higher number of steps per day.

Efficacy of n-3 fatty acid supplementation on rheumatoid arthritis' disease activity indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

Theoretical evidence and previous studies suggest that oralnutrient supplementation (ONS) with n-3 fatty acids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has the potential to lower disease activity indicators and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) uptake. A systematic search was conducted on five databases/registries from inception until May 23, 2021 with the aim to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials comparing n-3 supplements to placebo on disease-specific outcomes. A total of 23 studies matched the criteria (PROSPERO: CRD42019137041). Pooled analyses revealed that n-3 ONS provided a small effect in reducing pain [standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.16, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.40 to 0.09], and tender (SMD: -0.20, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.05) and swollen joint count (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.07). In sensitivity analyses, there was a small effect in the reduction of NSAIDs intake (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.90 to 0.46), and c-reactive protein was reduced only by 0.21 mg/dL (95% CI: -0.75 to 0.33). Similar findings were observed regarding other objective/subjective outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was mostly of "very low/low" quality. Overall, n-3 ONS in RA might have a limited clinical benefit. Previous findings suggesting a reduction in NSAID intake may have been biased from the inadequate blinding of interventions.

Placebo-Related Adverse Events in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are considered to provide the highest quality of interventional evidence. This meta-analysis summarizes the frequencies of adverse events according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) in the placebo arms of 101 such studies in rheumatoid arthritis, including a total of 17,150 patients in the placebo arms and 37,819 patients in the verum arms. Placebo-treated patients reported more than one adverse event in a median of 55.0%, 65.5%, and 72.5% (compared to 72.3% in the verum arms), and a serious adverse event in 2.5%, 5.8%, and 8.6% (compared to 5.9% in the verum arms), with stable doses of corticosteroids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and biological DMARDs as background therapies, respectively. Odds ratios were comparable between placebo and verum arms for nausea (1.00 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86–1.17), for hepatobiliary disorders (1.08 with CI 0.85–1.36), for abnormal hepatic functions (1.09 with CI 0.83–1.44), and general disorders and administration site conditions (1.39 with CI 0.95–2.03). A publication bias has to be assumed for nausea (p = 0.018; Egger’s test), diarrhoea (p = 0.022), and serious infections and infestations (p = 0.009). In conclusion, patients should be aware that “adverse events” may occur even with placebo medication, independent from an additional verum medication added to the background therapy. Further studies are warranted to respect and overcome the psychological and other issues related to these placebo-related “adverse events”.

Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine despite limited perceived efficacy in patients with rheumatic diseases in Mexico: Cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is frequently used by patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) to improve their symptoms; however, its diversity and availability have increased notably while scientific support for its effectiveness and adverse effects is still scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prevalence and diversity of CAM in patients with RD in Chihuahua, Mexico.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 500 patients with RD who were interviewed about the use of CAM to treat their disease. The interview included sociodemographic aspects, characteristics of the disease, as well as a description of CAM use, including type, frequency of use, perception of the benefit, communication with the rheumatologist, among others.

RESULTS

The prevalence of CAM use was reported by 59.2% of patients, which informed a total of 155 different therapies. The herbal CAM group was the most used (31.4%) and included more than 50 different therapies. The use of menthol-based and arnica ointments was highly prevalent (35%). Most patients (62.3%) reported very little or no improvement in their symptoms. Only a fourth of the patients informed the rheumatologist of the use of CAM. The use of CAM was influenced by female sex, university degree, diagnosis delay, lack adherence to the rheumatologist's treatment, family history of RD, and orthopedic devices.

CONCLUSION

The use of CAM in our population is highly prevalent and similar to reports in different populations suggesting a widespread use in many different societies. We found high use of herbal remedies; however, there were many different types suggesting a lack of significant effect. Patients continue using CAM despite a perception of no-effectiveness. Recurrent use of CAM is explained by factors other than its efficacy.