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

Alternative therapies for asthma: are patients at risk?

Mike Thomas and George Lewith
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.13-1-113
Clin Med February 2013
Mike Thomas
Asthma UK
Roles: Professor of primary care research and chief medical advisor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
George Lewith
University of Southampton
Roles: Professor in health research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Editor – Ernst and Posadski (Clin Med October 2012 pp 427–9) suggest scepticism is scientific virtue, but it is important to retain objectivity. This review appears to us actively hostile. The evidence of effectiveness for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in asthma is inconclusive, although ‘lack of evidence’ should not be confused with ‘evidence of lack’. Some interventions, eg breathing exercises and mindfulness meditation, have stronger evidence, and more and better-quality research is needed. The authors agree that asthma patients using CAM ‘often experience symptom reduction and less anxiety’. These appear useful outcomes, not to be dismissed lightly.

The authors suggest there is ‘considerable concern over the safety of some forms of alternative medicine’ including acupuncture which is described as ‘potentially life threatening’ with a ‘rare’ frequency of event. Endres et al prospectively analysed the adverse events in over 2 million acupuncture treatments.1 They identified 14,000 events with no deaths or serious adverse events directly or circumstantially attributable to acupuncture. Calman suggests that we should consider this risk between minimal (vaccination-associated polio) and negligible (hit by lightning).3 We are unsure why this data was not referenced and why this prevalence is a realistic hazard to patients. The statement that ‘the risk-benefit balance of these approaches is not positive’ could appear the opinion of commentators with a jaundiced eye.

There is also significant contradiction; the introduction states that CAM users use these approaches alongside conventional treatment and ‘there is evidence to suggest that the use of alternative medicine does not affect adherence to conventional asthma treatments’. Later the authors suggest ‘some patients might use it as a replacement for conventional treatment' (unreferenced), with the emotive suggestion that CAM-induced non-adherence could result in death.

Many people with asthma are interested in exploring non-drug treatments and many report benefit. As clinicians we should listen to and understand our patients, and as scientists to undertake the methodologically challenging but important research needed to quantify the risks and benefits of non-drug treatments for asthma. Telling patients how silly they are being is unlikely to help anyone.

Footnotes

  • Please submit letters for the editor's consideration within three weeks of receipt of Clinical Medicine. Letters should ideally be limited to 350 words, and sent by email to: clinicalmedicine{at}rcplondon.ac.uk

  • © 2013 Royal College of Physicians

References

  1. ↵
    1. Endres HG
    Molsberger A Lungenhausen M Trampisch HJ. An internal standard for verifying the accuracy of serious adverse event reporting: the example of an acupuncture study of 190,924 patients. Eur J Med Res 2004; 9:1–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Calman KC
    . Cancer: science and society and the communication of risk. BMJ 1996; 313:799.doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7060.799
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

Alternative therapies for asthma: are patients at risk?

I am, of course, pleased to see that this article attracted some attention, but I fear the authors of this comment might confuse a hostile with a critical attitude. Our brief review merely summarised the best available evidence on the subject and evaluated it critically. I strongly believe that an uncritical scientist is a contradiction in terms and I see reason to doubt that the commentators are critical in their assessments of alternative medicine.

For instance, they first cite the old chestnut that ‘lack of evidence is not evidence of lack’,1 only to subsequently claim that, because there is a lack of evidence that alternative therapies are used as a replacement of effective treatments, there is no reason to worry. In a similar vein, they seem to play down the possibility of rare but serious harm from acupuncture, despite the fact that numerous fatalities have been reported in the medical literature.2 Equally, they doubt that the risk/benefit balance of most alternative therapies for asthma fails to be positive, while dismissing an elementary fact: if a treatment is not demonstrably effective, even a small risk will tilt this balance into the negative.

Amazingly, the commentators even employ the old ‘argumentum ad populum’ which implies that, if something is used by many patients, it must be good. To end their comment, they then affirm ‘telling patients how silly they are is unlikely to help anyone’. As our article never stated anything remotely like this, this statement has many of the characteristics of a straw man.

Footnotes

  • Please submit letters for the editor's consideration within three weeks of receipt of Clinical Medicine. Letters should ideally be limited to 350 words, and sent by email to: clinicalmedicine{at}rcplondon.ac.uk

  • © 2013 Royal College of Physicians

References

  1. ↵
    Edzard Ernst: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, 2012. blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2012/03/19/edzard-ernst-absence-of-evidence-is-not-evidence-of-absence/ [Accessed 7 December 2012].
    1. Ernst E
    . Death after chiropractic: a review of published cases. Int J ClinPract 2010; 64:1162–5.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Alternative therapies for asthma: are patients at risk?
Mike Thomas, George Lewith
Clinical Medicine Feb 2013, 13 (1) 113; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-1-113

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Alternative therapies for asthma: are patients at risk?
Mike Thomas, George Lewith
Clinical Medicine Feb 2013, 13 (1) 113; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-1-113
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Footnotes
    • 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

  • Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of long COVID
  • Fibromyalgia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
  • Same-day emergency care
Show more Letters to the Editor

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

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 © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians