Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

From the editor

Humphrey Hodgson
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.12-5-403
Clin Med October 2012
Humphrey Hodgson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Complementary and alternative therapies: can we know what risks they present?

This issue carries the first of a series of articles in Clinical Medicine by Professor Ernst and colleagues from the Peninsula Medical School on the state of complementary medicine in the United Kingdom. The articles will predominantly comprise systematic reviews of surveys, and in this edition Ernst and Posadzki assess the potential for adverse effects of alternative approaches to the treatment of asthma.1 The extensively referenced and tabulated nature of the data presented in some of these articles is such that the journal has decided to present much of those as an online supplement: if readers find that off-putting, we can only apologise for a compromise that ensures that these admirably collated and up-to-date data are available for reference.

Predictably these articles confirm substantial current usage of alternative therapies by patients/consumers in the UK (at least 25%), but will also present the strikingly high proportion of UK doctors who recommend alternative and complementary approaches and the extent to which they have been trained in these approaches. Other articles, both in the series and to be published elsewhere by the same authors, present the evidence for harm by alternative approaches.

One striking observation from Ernst's surveys is how poor the quality of evidence is in respect of both efficacy and the potential for adverse events. Rawlins in his Harveian Oration in 2008 described (before demolishing) the conventional hierarchy of evidence quality, which places high quality systematic reviews in the top rank and non-analytic studies, such as case reports, nearly at the lowest level (only just above expert opinion!)2 The analyses of efficacy and side effects in the forthcoming series are hampered by the necessity to analyse only reviews of adequate quality; the proportion of published work in this field with major flaws is depressing. Much of the evidence for dangerous side effects comes not from systematic reviews, and even less so from controlled trials, but from individual case reports. Note, therefore, a marked difference in risk reporting from that governing conventional drug therapy. With conventional medications, post-marketing pharmaco-vigilance, such as ‘yellow card’ notifications, allows such data to accumulate, both on direct adverse effects and on interactions. With conventional and alternative therapies, the systems for reporting are far less well-developed – and not only in terms of the prescriber's obligations to report them. A significant side effect or drug interaction may bring the patient to a conventional doctor, but then the patient's unwillingness to admit to the use of alternative therapies, and the conventional doctor's lack of curiosity in enquiring about them, easily combine to conceal any connection.

It would seem uncontentious to believe that the UK population should be protected against adverse effects of any medication – conventional or alternative. The eventual decision of the government, in February last year,3 to ask the Health Professions Council to establish a statutory register for practitioners of herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicines must deliver this.

The decision to ask the Health Professions Council (HPC) (from August this year renamed the Health and Care Professions Council) reversed the decision of the Secretary of State in the previous government,4 who had advocated voluntary regulation by the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (which covers alternative therapies including hypnotherapy, aromatherapy, Alexander technique teaching and yoga therapy).5 The Health and Care Professions Council seems an unusual home for herbal practitioners: its current remit covers regulation of 15 health professions such as biomedical scientists, chiropodists/podiatrists, clinical scientists, dietitians, art therapists, hearing aid dispensers, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners and radiographers, each with well delineated professional qualifications. Indeed in all of the professions that it regulates, at least one professional title is protected by law.6 It is one of the nine regulatory bodies (others include the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council) scrutinised and overseen by the regulated Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. It seems likely that the HPC will need to provide a different form of regulatory oversight for its newly acquired members, whose training, qualifications and title are – at the least – diverse in nature and quality. There has been substantial discussion of the fact that, for these practitioners, statutory regulation confers the very substantial advantage under European regulations of being able to continue to prescribe unlicensed herbal medicine products. It is to be hoped that, when the details of the regulations are finalised, part of the bargain with these practitioners is an obligation to report systematically on the adverse effects of the preparations they use.

  • © 2012 Royal College of Physicians

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ernst E,
    2. Posadzki P
    . Alternative therapies for asthma: are patients at risk. Clin Med 2012;12:424–426
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Rawlins M
    . De Testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Clin Med 2008;8:579–88doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61930-3
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Department of Health. Analysis report on the 2009 consultation on the statutory regulation of practitioners of acupuncture, herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and other traditional medicine systems practised in the UK. London: DH, 2011
  4. ↵
    Next Steps for complementary therapy2012. webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/MediaCentre/Pressreleasesarchive/DH_115091 [Accessed 27 July 2012]
  5. ↵
    1. Regulation of Complementary Medicine
    , www.icnm.org.uk/education/regulation [Accessed 27 July 2012].
  6. ↵
    1. Protected titles
    , www.hpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ [Accessed 27 July 2012].
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
From the editor
Humphrey Hodgson
Clinical Medicine Oct 2012, 12 (5) 403-404; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.12-5-403

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
From the editor
Humphrey Hodgson
Clinical Medicine Oct 2012, 12 (5) 403-404; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.12-5-403
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Complementary and alternative therapies: can we know what risks they present?
    • References
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The past, the present, and the future: reflecting on ­medical history as we welcome new leaders
  • Targeting limited NHS resources to affect optimal care
  • Regulation needs new legislation to get lighter
Show more Editorials

Similar Articles

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2020 by the Royal College of Physicians