JAMA 1998 (Mar 4); 279 (9):708-709
By Wayne Jonas, MD, 
Director, Office of Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health
Complementary and alternative medicine   (CAM) represents that subset of
practices that are not an integral part   of the dominant health care system in
the United States but are still   used by patients to supplement their health
care.[1]  Surveys   have operationally defined CAM
as those practices used for the   prevention and treatment of disease that are
not taught widely in   medical schools nor generally available in hospitals.[2]      
Public and Professional Interest in CAM   
One out of every 3 Americans consulted an alternative health care  
practitioner in 1990, constituting over 400 million visits. Over $13   billion
was paid for these services, of which $10 billion was not   reimbursed.[2]  In
Europe and Australia, regular use of CAM   practices ranges from 20% to 70%.[3,4]       
Substantial professional interest exists in CAM practices as well. Over  
50% of conventional physicians in the United States use or refer   patients for
some CAM treatments, and most perceive them as having some   efficacy.[5-7]  Hospital systems, health  maintenance
organizations, and insurance companies are increasingly providing  CAM
services.[8]  In addition, mainstream  medical
journals are beginning to call for research papers in complementary, 
alternative, unconventional, and integrative medicine.[9]
The Role of the Conventional Practitioner in CAM   
Often patients will accept anecdotes or sophisticated marketing   as
sufficient grounds to try new therapies. The conventional   practitioner can
help patients incorporate more scientific evidence in   their health care
decisions. The following are directives physicians   can adopt when discussing
the use of CAM practices with their   patients.[10]
      
Protecting patients from the risks of CAMGiven the   extensive
use of CAM services and the relative paucity of data   concerning safety,
patients may be putting themselves at risk by their   use of these treatments.[11]  Only fully  competent and   licensed
practitioners can help patients avoid such inappropriate   use.[12]  Some CAM products contain  powerful
pharmacologic   substances that can be toxic either alone or in combination with
other   medications.[13]  Also, contamination
and poor  quality control   are more likely with CAM products than with
conventional drugs,   especially when shipped from overseas.[14]   Physicians can   also ensure that patients do
not abandon effective care and alert them   to signs of possible fraud or
danger.[15]       
Permitting use of nonspecific therapiesSome therapeutic  
benefits of CAM may be attributed to nonspecific   factors.[16,17]  Basic
science and clinical trials can   separate general factors from those components
that are specific, and   unique to the therapy. Practitioners can combine both
specific and   nonspecific factors to achieve maximum benefit to the health of
their   patients.[18]       
Promoting safe and effective CAM therapiesAccumulating  
evidence suggests that CAM practices are valuable for the treatment of  
disease.[19-21]  Importantly, alternative 
products are often   less expensive than conventional medications. For example,
studies   report that Hypericum (St John's wort) is not only as  
effective as conventional antidepressants in treating depression but   can be
obtained at one third the cost.[22]   Physicians
can search the published medical literature and evaluate the  applicability of
CAM for specific patients' problems.      
Partnering with patients about CAMMore than 80% of   those who
used unconventional practices in 1990 combined these   practices with
conventional medicine.[23]   Patients who use  
CAM do not harbor antiscientific or anticonventional medicine   sentiments, nor
do they represent a disproportionate number of the   uneducated, poor, seriously
ill, or neurotic.[24,25]
 Yet 70%   of patients who use CAM practices do not tell their conventional  
practitioner about this use. The physician can fill this communication   gap by
asking patients about their CAM use and work with them to ensure   that these
therapies are used responsibly.[12]     
Medical Students and Medical Education in CAM     
Recognizing the increasing importance of CAM in modern health care,   more
than 80% of medical students would like further training in these   areas.[26,27]   Currently,
over 40 medical schools in the   United States offer introductory, elective
courses in CAM and almost   one third of family practice residencies provide
some type of   instruction about CAM practices.[28,29]     
In June 1996, a panel of experts in medical and nursing education   assessed
the status of CAM education. The panel included deans and   associate deans for
curriculum and education from medical and nursing   schools and representatives
from the American Medical Association   (AMA), American Academy of Family
Practice (AAFP), Association of   American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Federation
of State Medical Boards,   Pew Health Professions Commission, American Medical
Student Association   (AMSA), and other organizations. They made the following 3
  recommendations regarding the future role of CAM in health sciences  
education.[30]       
Medical and nursing education should include   information about
complementary practices.      
  Medical and nursing education about each complementary   and
alternative practice should include information about the   discipline's
philosophical paradigm, scientific foundation,   educational preparation,
practice, and evidence of safety and efficacy.     
National centers of excellence should continue to be   developed
to foster collaboration among complementary practitioners,   nurses, and
physicians and to promote synergy among education,   research, and clinical
practice.     
By "philosophical paradigm" the panel meant that students   should
learn about the different values and worldviews on health and   disease that are
to be found in a pluralistic society. Currently,   organizations such as the
AMA, AAFP, AAMC, and AMSA are discussing   strategies for addressing medical
education needs in CAM.    
CAM Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)   
 
The NIH currently invests about $40 million per year in   CAM-related
research. To address the need for research in   complementary, alternative, and
unconventional medical practices,   Congress created the Office of Alternative
Medicine (OAM) at the NIH in   1992. The OAM works with NIH institutes and
centers to identify and   support CAM research applications and develops new
programs in selected   CAM-related areas. It supports 11 centers conducting over
50 projects   on CAM research at universities around the country. The OAM also  
maintains an organized bibliographic database of over 90 000   citations.
Selections from this database on safety and clinical   conditions will soon be
available on the OAM web site. An OAM supported   public information
clearinghouse responds to 2000 inquiries each month.   
Conclusions     
As the importance of CAM continues to grow, physicians will be  
increasingly expected to address issues related to these practices.   Physicians
cannot become knowledgeable about all CAM practices, but   they can apply the
principles of evidence-based medicine, as in any   area of health care.[31]  The OAM can serve  as a resource to  
physicians in their effort to provide safe, effective, and appropriate   health
care for the American public.     
| The OAM Supports the Following  11 Centers for   Research in CAM
| Focus | Location |  
| Cancer | University of Texas  Health Science Center |  
| Women's health | Columbia University College  of Physicians and  Surgeons |  
| Stroke and neurorehabilitation
 | Kessler Institute for  Rehabilitation |  
| HIV and AIDS | Bastyr University |  
| Pain | University of Virginia  School of Nursing, University of 
Maryland  School of Medicine |  
| Aging | Stanford University |  
| Addictions | Minneapolis Medical  Research Center |  
| Internal medicine | Beth Israel Hospital,  Harvard Medical School |  
| Asthma and allergy | University of California, Davis |  
| Chiropractic | Palmer College of Chiropractic |  | 
| For information about CAM research at the NIH, contact the public 
information clearinghouse at (888) 644-6226 or the OAM Web site at 
www.altmed.od.nih.gov.  
 
 For grant information call the OAM at (301) 435-5024; grant applications can
 be obtained from the Grants Information Office at (301) 435-0714 or by e-mail
at 
asknih@odrockml.od.nih.gov.    
 | 
References:
1.      Working Group on Definitions and 
Descriptions of Complementary and   Alternative Medicine. Defining and
describing complementary and   alternative medicine. Alt Ther Health Med.
1997;3:49-57.      
2.      Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, 
Norlock FE, Calkins DR, Delbanco   TL. Unconventional medicine in the United
Statesprevalence, costs,   and patterns of use. N Engl J Med.
1993;328:246-252.         
3.      Fisher P, Ward A. Complementary  medicine
in Europe. BMJ.   1994;309:107-111.      
4.      MacLennan AH, Wilson DH, Taylor AW. 
Prevalence and cost of alternative   medicine in Australia. Lancet.
1996;347:569-573.     
5.      Blumberg DL, Grant WD, Hendricks SR,  Kamps
CA, Dewan MJ. The physician   and unconventional medicine. Alt Ther Health
Med.   1995;1:31-35.      
6.      Berman BM, Singh BK, Lao L, Singh BB, 
Ferentz KS, Hartnoll SM.   Physicians' attitudes toward complementary or
alternative medicine: a   regional survey. J Am Board Fam Pract.
1995;8:361-363.     
7.      Ernst E. Complementary medicine: what 
physicians think of it: a   meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med.
1995;155:2405-2408.     
8.      Pelletier KR, Marie A, Krasner M, Haskell 
WL. Current trends in the   integration and reimbursement of complementary and
alternative medicine   by managed care, insurance carriers, and hospital
providers. Am J   Health Promot. 1997;12:112-123.     
9.      Fontanarosa PB, Lundberg GD. 
Complementary, alternative,   unconventional, and integrative medicine: call for
papers for the   annual coordinated theme issues of the AMA journals. JAMA.
  1997;278:2111-2112.     
10.      Eisenberg DM. Advising patients who 
seek alternative medical therapies.  
Arch Intern Med. 1997;127:61-69.     
11.      Ernst E. Bitter pills of nature: safety 
issues in complementary   medicine. Pain. 1995;60:237-238.     
12.      Special Committee on Health Care  Fraud.
Special report on health care   fraud. Austin, Tex: Federation of State Medical
Boards; 1997.     
13.      De Smet PAGM, Keller K, Haensel R, 
Chandler RF. Adverse   Effects of Herbal Drugs. Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer-Verlag;   1997.     
14.      Bensoussan A, Myers SP. Towards  a
Safer Choice. Victoria,   Australia: University of Western Sydney Macarthur;
1996.     
15.      Barrett S. The public needs protection 
from so-called   "alternatives." Internist. 1994;9:10-11.     
16.      Roberts AH, Kewman DG, Mercier L, 
Hovell M. The power of nonspecific   effects in healing: implications for
psychological and biological   treatments. Clin Psychol Rev.
1993;13:375-391.     
17.      Thomas KB. The placebo in general 
practice. Lancet.   1994;344:1066-1067.     
18.      Chaput de Saintonage D, Herxheimer  A.
Harnessing placebo effects in   health care. Lancet. 1994;344:995-998.  
  
19.      Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. Gingko biloba 
for cerebral insufficiency.  
Br J Clin Pharm. 1992;34:352-358.     
20.      Le Bars PL, Katz MM, Berman N, Itil  TM,
Freedman AM, Schatzberg AF. A   placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized
trial of an extract of   ginkgo biloba for dementia. JAMA.
1997;278:1327-1332.     
21.      Neil A, Silagy C. Garlic: its cardio-
protective properties. Curr   Opin Lipidol. 1994;5:6-10.     
22.      Linde K, Ramirez G, Mulrow CD, Pauls  A,
Weidenhammer W, Melchart D. St   John's wort for depressionan overview and
meta-analysis of   randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1996;313:253-258.   
 
23.      Eisenberg DM. The invisible  mainstream.
Harvard Med Alum Bull.   1996:20-25.     
24.      Furnham A, Forey J. The attitudes, 
behaviors and beliefs of   patients of conventional vs. complementary
(alternative) medicine.  
J Clin Psychol. 1994;50:458-469.      
25.      Vincent C, Furnham A, Willsmore M.  The
perceived efficacy of   complementary and orthodox medicine in complementary and
general   practice patients. Health Educ Theory Pract. 1995;10:395-405. 
   
26.      Halliday J, Taylor M, Jenkins A, Reilly 
D. Medical students and   complementary medicine. Comp Ther Med.
1993;1:32-33.     
27.      Furnham A, Hanna D, Vincent CA.  Medical
students' attitudes to   complementary medical therapies. Comp Ther Med.
  1995;3:212-219.     
28.      Daly D. Alternative medicine courses 
taught at United States medical   schools: an ongoing list. J Alt Comp Med.
1997;3:405-410.     
29.      Carlston M, Stuart M, Jonas W. 
Alternative medicine instruction   in medical schools and family medicine
residency programs. Fam   Med. 1997;29:559-562.     
30.      Panel issues recommendations for 
incorporating complementary practices   into medical/nursing education. Alt
Ther Health Med.   1996;2:25.     
31.      Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence  based
medicine: an approach to clinical   problem-solving. BMJ.
1995;310:1122-1126