Unconventional medicines for osteoarthritis - Are they an appropriate alternative?

Zochling, J., March, L., Lapsley, H. M., Cross, M, Tribe, K., Brooks, P. M. and Bone and Joint Research/Sydney, Institute of (2003). Unconventional medicines for osteoarthritis - Are they an appropriate alternative?. In: Internal Medicine Journal.. Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian Rheumatology Association and the Rheumatology Health Professionals Association, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, (A91-A91). 18–21 May 2003. doi:10.1046/j.1445-5994.2003.t01-6-00001.x


Author Zochling, J.
March, L.
Lapsley, H. M.
Cross, M
Tribe, K.
Brooks, P. M.
Bone and Joint Research/Sydney, Institute of
Title of paper Unconventional medicines for osteoarthritis - Are they an appropriate alternative?
Conference name Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian Rheumatology Association and the Rheumatology Health Professionals Association
Conference location Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Conference dates 18–21 May 2003
Proceedings title Internal Medicine Journal.   Check publisher's open access policy
Place of Publication Carlton, Victoria, Australia
Publisher Wiley Interscience
Publication Year 2003
DOI 10.1046/j.1445-5994.2003.t01-6-00001.x
ISSN 1444-0903
1445-5994
Volume 33
Issue 11
Start page A91
End page A91
Total pages 1
Language eng
Formatted Abstract/Summary
Aim: To determine what complementary and alternative medicines (CAM)
patients with osteoarthritis (OA) use for management of their joint disease,
how much they spend and what demographic and quality of life factors may
be associated with CAM use.
Methods: This prospective study of 341 subjects with osteoarthritis of the
knee or hip was drawn from central and northern Sydney, Australia,
comprising 83 community-based patients and 258 individuals awaiting joint
replacement. Information on CAM use was obtained by prospectively
recording 3 monthly diaries over one year, and a 3 month retrospective diary
at baseline. Variables of interest included health-related quality of life
scores. Prospective out-of-pocket costs were recorded over 12 months.
Results: The prevalence of CAM use was 40%, which falls within the range
of previous studies. Average annual expenditure on CAM was A$80.85
(range A$0-A$603.30), making up 15-33% of the total out-of-pocket
disease-related costs (excluding surgery). Independent predictors of CAM
use include female gender (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.5), non-use of conventional
analgesics (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.5) and higher self-reported pain
(p=0.01). Vitamin supplementation was the most common CAM reported,
followed by celery extract, fish oils and garlic extracts. When compared with
the retrospective questionnaire, it was shown that 20% fewer subjects
prospectively purchased CAM, and these overestimated their CAM expenditure
by almost double. This is the first prospective study to address this
issue.
Conclusions: The preparations purchased by OA patients do not have a
good evidence-base for their use. Outcomes of pain and function are not
significantly better in those individuals purchasing alternative medications,
which suggests OA patients may be better off using simple, low cost
analgesics for symptom relief.
Subjects CX
Q-Index Code CX

 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 02:57:12 EST