Monthly Archives: January 2020
Every now and then, I come across a SCAM paper that is so ‘far out’ that, when reading it, my mind wants to boggle. This one (recently published in ‘Medical Acupuncture’) is about ‘paediatric scupuncture’ – no, not acupuncture performed by kids – it’s acupuncture for kids. The temptation to show you the full, unaltered abstract is too strong to resist:
Background: Approaching pediatric acupuncture from a spiritual perspective is the most effective means for providing a valuable holistic relatively noninvasive approach to pediatric acupuncture, as well as preventive treatments for the repulsion of disease and the correction of Qi (i.e., vital energy) imbalances.
Objectives: Parents may be taught to apply acupressure to their children with an excellent response, especially when given with loving kindness.
Materials and Methods: Methods include the use of acupressure, laser techniques, and acupuncture for children who do not display fear toward the shallow insertion of needles.
Results: Owing to the young age of the patients, children will display fast and effective positive responses to therapy, just as they are susceptible to negative effects in similar timeframes. Children will respond faster than adults to such treatments, which can also increase immune system functionality and bolster resistance to invasive forms of Qi imbalances and disease. Such treatments will also relieve pain and distress and improve concentration and mental attitudes in children. Difficult conditions such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attention deficit disorder (ADD) can also be effectively treated through a spiritual approach to pediatric acupuncture.
Conclusions: Pediatric acupuncture from a spiritual perspective provides a specific, safe, and effective therapy for a wide variety of painful and nonpainful conditions through Qi balancing in children. Moreover, parents may be taught to apply acupressure to their children with an excellent response, especially when given with loving kindness. Such techniques not only resolve acute symptoms but also provide preventive measures and enable parent–child relationships to thrive. Overall, medical acupuncture from a spiritual perspective is one of the best complementary therapies in pediatrics.
Of course, you now wonder who is the genius able to produce such deep wisdom. It is Dr. Steven K.H. Aung. He says of himself that he is a pioneer in the integration of western, traditional Chinese and complementary medicine. His efforts have helped to make Alberta and Canada an active centre in the field of integrated and complementary medicine. His unique approach to medicine, combined with the remarkable compassion he brings to all that he does, has made him a highly respected teacher, researcher and physician.
Doctor Aung’s affiliations are impressive:
- Clinical Professor, Departments of Medicine & Family Medicine Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)
- Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)
- Chief instructor, examiner and curriculum consultant for the Medical Acupuncture Program (MAP), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Continous Professional Learning, University of Alberta (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)
In addition, he holds visiting professor appointments at:
- Beijing University of TCM and Research Institute,
- Capital University of Medical Sciences (Beijing),
- Heilongjiang University of TCM (Harbin, China),
- Showa University School of Medicine (Tokyo),
- California Institute for Human Science (Encinitas, California),
- Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (Melbourne, Australia).
And now my mind truly boggles!
I have been sceptical about Craniosacral Therapy (CST) several times (see for instance here, here and here). Now, a new paper might change all this:
The systematic review assessed the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Pain intensity and functional disability were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
Ten RCTs with a total of 681 patients suffering from neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included.
Compared to treatment as usual, CST showed greater post intervention effects on:
- pain intensity (SMD=-0.32, 95%CI=[−0.61,-0.02])
- disability (SMD=-0.58, 95%CI=[−0.92,-0.24]).
Compared to manual/non-manual sham, CST showed greater post intervention effects on:
- pain intensity (SMD=-0.63, 95%CI=[−0.90,-0.37])
- disability (SMD=-0.54, 95%CI=[−0.81,-0.28]) ;
Compared to active manual treatments, CST showed greater post intervention effects on:
- pain intensity (SMD=-0.53, 95%CI=[−0.89,-0.16])
- disability (SMD=-0.58, 95%CI=[−0.95,-0.21]) .
At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD=-0.59, 95%CI=[−0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD=-0.53, 95%CI=[−0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups.
The authors concluded that, in patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain.
Robust effects! This looks almost convincing, particularly to an uncritical proponent of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). However, a bit of critical thinking quickly discloses numerous problems, not with this (technically well-made) review, but with the interpretation of its results and the conclusions. Let me mention a few that spring into my mind:
- The literature searches were concluded in August 2018; why publish the paper only in 2020? Meanwhile, there might have been further studies which would render the review outdated even on the day it was published. (I know that there are many reasons for such a delay, but a responsible journal editor must insist on an update of the searches before publication.)
- Comparisons to ‘treatment as usual’ do not control for the potentially important placebo effects of CST and thus tell us nothing about the effectiveness of CST per se.
- The same applies to comparisons to ‘active’ manual treatments and ‘non-manual’ sham (the purpose of a sham is to blind patients; a non-manual sham defies this purpose).
- This leaves us with exactly two trials employing a sham that might have been sufficiently credible to be able to fool patients into believing that they were receiving the verum.
- One of these trials (ref 44) is far too flimsy to be taken seriously: it was tiny (n=23), did not adequately blind patients, and failed to mention adverse effects (thus violating research ethics [I cannot take such trials seriously]).
- The other trial (ref 41) is by the same research group as the review, and the authors award themselves a higher quality score than any other of the primary studies (perhaps even correctly, because the other trials are even worse). Yet, their study has considerable weaknesses which they fail to discuss: it was small (n=54), there was no check to see whether patient-blinding was successful, and – as with all the CST studies – the therapist was, of course, no blind. The latter point is crucial, I think, because patients can easily be influenced by the therapists via verbal or non-verbal communication to report the findings favoured by the therapist. This means that the small effects seen in such studies are likely to be due to this residual bias and thus have nothing to do with the intervention per se.
- Despite the fact that the review findings depend critically on their own primary study, the authors of the review declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Considering all this plus the rather important fact that CST completely lacks biological plausibility, I do not think that the conclusions of the review are warranted. I much prefer the ones from my own systematic review of 2012. It included 6 RCTs (all of which were burdened with a high risk of bias) and concluded that the notion that CST is associated with more than non‐specific effects is not based on evidence from rigorous RCTs.
So, why do the review authors first go to the trouble of conducting a technically sound systematic review and meta-analysis and then fail utterly to interpret its findings critically? I might have an answer to this question. Back in 2016, I included the head of this research group, Gustav Dobos, into my ‘hall of fame’ because he is one of the many SCAM researchers who never seem to publish a negative result. This is what I then wrote about him:
Dobos seems to be an ‘all-rounder’ whose research tackles a wide range of alternative treatments. That is perhaps unremarkable – but what I do find remarkable is the impression that, whatever he researches, the results turn out to be pretty positive. This might imply one of two things, in my view:
- all alternative therapies are effective,
- the ‘Trustworthiness Index’ of Prof Dobos is unusual.
I let my readers chose which possibility they deem to be more likely.
As reported previously the NHS NATURAL HEALTH SCHOOL in Harrogate, is a service that offered a range of free complementary therapy treatments to patients and their relatives who are affected by a cancer diagnosis and are either receiving their cancer treatment at Harrogate or live in the Harrogate and Rural District.
This NHS school offered alternative treatments to cancer patients and claim that they know from experience, that when Complementary Therapies are integrated into patient care we are able to deliver safe, high quality care which fulfils the needs of even the most complex of patients.
In addition, they also ran courses for alternative practitioners. Their reflexology course, for instance, covered all of the following:
- Explore the history and origins of Reflexology
- Explore the use of various mediums used in treatment including waxes, balms, powders and oils
- Explore the philosophy of holism and its role within western bio medicine
- Reading the feet/hands and mapping the reflex points
- Relevant anatomy, physiology and pathology
- Managing a wide range of conditions
- Legal implications
- Cautions and contraindications
- Assessment and client care
- Practical reflexology skills and routines
- Treatment planning
I imagine that the initiators of the school are full of the very best, altruistic intentions. I therefore had considerable difficulties in criticising them. Yet, I do strongly feel that the NHS should be based on good evidence; and that much of the school’s offerings seemed to be the exact opposite. In fact, the NHS-label was being abused for giving undeserved credibility to outright quackery.
Therefore, I did something I do rarely: I filed an official complaint in September 2019.
What happened next?
Nothing!
I sent several reminders; and what happened then?
Almost nothing!
I got several assurances that a response was imminent.
And then I forgot all about it.
So, I was surprised to receive this email yesterday from the chief executive of the HARROGATE AND DISTRICT NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (I did not change or correct anything):
Thank you for contacting our Chair about the Natural Health School and my apologies for the extended delay in replying to you. We have reflected on the points you raised and I have set out a summary of this below in respect of the key issues.
- As a result of colleagues who set up the service having moved on to other posts outside of the Trust we have not been able to understand how the service was named. However, I agree that the terminology “NHS Natural Health School” could be interpreted in a certain way and as such we have agreed it should instead be referred to as the Natural Health School only to avoid any interpretation that it has national NHS endorsement. We will amend the information on the website and other material to reflect that the service is endorsed by the Trust.
- The service is hosted by HDFT, in that staff are employed by the Trust, but it is funded through charitable contributions. No NHS resources are used in providing the school, or the complementary therapies which are provided to patients receiving treatment at the Sir Robert Ogden Centre.
- There is no intention to assert that the services provided (ie the complementary therapies) are treatment for cancer. The ‘treatments’ referred to are complementary therapy treatments and are described as such. They are focused on wellbeing concurrently to the medical treatment of cancer, and we are satisfied that this is clear in the current description.
- Whilst recognising the differences of views on the complementary therapy treatments, the service regularly secures feedback from patients and this has been positive and as such we continue to offer it to those patients who would wish to take it up.
- The school provides training to allow participants to achieve a qualification which is awarded at level 3 by the International Therapies Examination Council.
I hope this provides clarity on the context to the service.
Best wishes
… … …
___________________________________________________________________
I find this response more than a little unsatisfactory; here are just a few points I find worth mentioning:
- As far as I can see, apart of the actual name of the school (it is now called ‘NATURAL HEALTH SCHOOL’), very little has changed. In particular, a NHS link is still implied in multiple different ways.
- To claim that ‘we have not been able to understand how the service was named’ seems like someone is taking the Mikey.
- So is the remark that ‘the terminology “NHS Natural Health School” could be interpreted in a certain way’.
- The statement ‘there is no intention to assert that the services provided (ie the complementary therapies) are treatment for cancer’ is simply untrue; symptomatic treatment of cancer is still a treatment for cancer!
- If the treatments are focussed on wellbeing, they nevertheless should be backed by evidence to show that they improve wellbeing. The label ‘complementary’ does not absolve a therapy from the need to be evidence-based.
- There may be ‘different views’ on complementary therapies; yet, there is only one set of evidence – and that fails to support several of the treatments on offer.
- Positive feedback from patients is no substitute for evidence.
I am not sure whether I should reply to the above letter. I take little pleasure in embarrassing chief excecutives.
WHAT DO YOU THINK I SHOULD DO?
Yesterday, we discussed a paper concluding (amongst other things) that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for cancer‐related pain. Today, we are looking at one that overtly contradicts this verdict.
This systematic review (published in JAMA Oncology) evaluated the existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for evidence of the association of acupuncture and acupressure with reduction in cancer pain. Randomized clinical trials that compared acupuncture and acupressure with a sham control, analgesic therapy, or usual care for managing cancer pain were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by the Brief Pain Inventory, Numerical Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, or Verbal Rating Scale.
A total of 17 RCTs (with 1111 patients) were included, and data from 14 RCTs (with 920 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. Seven sham-controlled RCTs (35%) were notable for their high quality, being judged to have a low risk of bias for all of their domains, and showed that real (compared with sham) acupuncture was associated with reduced pain intensity. A favourable association was also seen when acupuncture and acupressure were combined with analgesic therapy in 6 RCTs for reducing pain intensity and in 2 RCTs for reducing opioid dose. The evidence grade was moderate because of the substantial heterogeneity among studies.
The authors concluded that this systematic review and meta-analysis found that acupuncture and/or acupressure was significantly associated with reduced cancer pain and decreased use of analgesics, although the evidence level was moderate. This finding suggests that more rigorous trials are needed to identify the association of acupuncture and acupressure with specific types of cancer pain and to integrate such evidence into clinical care to reduce opioid use.
So, which of the two conclusions should we trust?
Personally, I find the JAMA paper unimpressive to the point of being suspect. Here are some of my reasons:
- About half of the primary studies are Chinese; and we have seen repeatedly that they are unreliable and report only positive results.
- Many of the trials are published in Chinese and can thus not be checked by non-Chinese readers (nor, presumably, by the experts who acted as peer-reviewers for JAMA Oncology).
- I have my doubts about the rigor of the peer-review of some of the journals that published the primary studies included in the review.
- One paper included in the review is even a mere doctoral thesis which usually is not peer-reviewed in the usual sense.
- The authors state that they included only clinical trials that compared acupuncture and acupressure with a sham control, analgesic therapy, or usual care. However, this is evidently not true; many of the studies had the infamous A+B versus B design comparing acupuncture plus a conventional therapy against the conventional therapy. As we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog, such trials cannot produce a negative finding even if ‘A’ is a placebo.
- Contrary to what the authors claim, the quality of most of the included studies was extremely poor, as far as I can see.
- One included paper which I cannot access is entitled ‘Clinical observation on 30 cases of moderate and severe cancer pain of bone metastasis treated by auricular acupressure‘. Are the review authors seriously claiming that this is an RCT?
The more I study the details of the JAMA Oncology paper, the more I feel it might be worth a complaint to the editor with a view of initiating a thorough investigation and a possible retraction.
The aim of this review is to synthesise systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of acupuncture to alleviate chronic pain. A total of 177 reviews of acupuncture from 1989 to 2019 met the eligibility criteria. The majority of SRs found that RCTs of acupuncture had methodological shortcomings, including inadequate statistical power with a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity between RCTs was such that meta-analysis was often inappropriate.
Having (co-) authored 13 of these SRs myself, I am impressed with the amount of work that went into this synthesis. The authors should be congratulated for doing it – and for doing it well! The paper itself differentiates the findings according to various types of pain. Here I reproduce the authors’ conclusion regarding different pain entities:
- Evidence from SRs suggests that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for chronic pain associated with various medical conditions. There is no specific NICE guidance about the use of acupuncture for chronic pain conditions irrespective of aetiology or pathophysiology, although some guidance exists for specific pain conditions (see respective sections below). Guidance by NICE on chronic pain assessment and management is currently being developed (GIDNG10069) with publication expected in August 2020.
- Evidence from the SRs suggests that acupuncture prevents episodic or chronic tension‐type headaches and episodic migraine, although long‐term studies and studies comparing acupuncture with other treatment options are still required. The current NICE guidance (clinical guideline CG150) is that a course of up to 10 sessions of acupuncture over 5–8 weeks is recommended for tension‐type headache and migraine.
- The most recent evidence from a Cochrane review of 16 RCTs suggests that acupuncture is not superior to sham acupuncture for OA of the hip, although in contrast, evidence from nonCochrane reviews suggests that there is moderate‐quality evidence that acupuncture may be effective in the symptomatic relief of pain from OA of the knee. Why there should be a difference in evidence between the knee and the hip is not known. Interestingly, guidance from NICE (CG177) states: “Do not offer acupuncture for the management of osteoarthritis”.
- Evidence suggests that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for low back pain. In 2009, NICE published guidance for the management of nonspecific low back pain that recommended a course of acupuncture as part of first line treatment. This guidance produced much debate. Subsequently, NICE have updated guidance for the management of low back pain and sciatica in people over 16 (NG59) and currently recommend in Section 1.2.8 “Do not offer acupuncture for managing low back pain with or without sciatica”, even though the evidence had not significantly changed.
- Evidence from SRs suggests that dry needling acupuncture might be effective in alleviating pain associated with myofascial trigger points, at least in the short‐term, although there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy with any degree of certainty. There is no guidance from NICE on the management of myofascial pain syndrome.
- Evidence from the SRs suggests that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for cancer‐related pain and more high‐quality, appropriately designed and adequately powered studies are needed. The most recent guidance from NICE (CSG4) recognises that patients who are receiving palliative care often seek complementary therapies, but it does not specifically recommend acupuncture. It recognises that “Many studies have a considerable number of methodological limitations, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions”.
- Evidence from SRs suggests that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for fibromyalgia pain. There is no NICE guidance on the treatment of fibromyalgia.
- Evidence from the SRs suggests that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for primary dysmenorrhea or chronic pelvic pain. There is NICE guidance on endometriosis (NG73) [200] but this does not recommend any form of Chinese medicine for this type of pelvic pain, although acupuncture is not specifically mentioned.
- Evidence from the SRs suggests that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for pain in inflammatory arthritis. There is a NICE guideline (NG100) [201] for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but this does not recommend acupuncture.
- Evidence from the SRs suggests that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for neuropathic pain or neuralgia. There is NICE guidance (CG173) on the management of neuropathic pain, but acupuncture is not included in the list of recommended/not recommended treatments.
- Evidence from SRs suggests that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for a variety of other painful conditions, including lateral elbow pain, shoulder pain and labour pain. There is no guidance available from NICE on the treatment of any of these conditions.
So, what should we make of all this?
Maybe I just point out two things:
- This is a most valuable addition to the literature about acupuncture. It can serve as a reference for all who are interested in an honest account of the (lack of) value of acupuncture in the management of chronic pain.
- If a therapy has been tested in hundreds of (sadly often flawed) trials and the conclusions fail to come out clearly in favour of it, it is most likely not a very effective treatment.
Until we have data to the contrary, acupuncture should not be considered to be an effective therapy for chronic pain management.
If you, like many of us, have heavily ‘toxed’, you might now consider ‘detoxing’. What I mean is that we have probably all over-indulged a bit over the holidays. Unless you were the guest of someone, you had to pay dearly for it (Champagne is not cheap!). And now, a whole industry of ‘detox’ entrepreneurs tells you to pay again – this time, for detox.
As you payed ‘through your nose’ for the ‘tox’, you might as well use the same orifice for the ‘detox’. An Indian tradition called Nasiyam (or Nasyam? or Nasya? – I am confused!) makes it possible. This website explains:
Nasal Instillation (Nasyam) is the practice of instilling medicated oils, fresh juices of leaves or flowers in the nostrils … Nasyam is specially directed towards the purification of various parts related to the head…
I don’t know about you, but I always felt that all my parts were related to my head! So, Nasyam is for purification of all my parts? The announcement below – I picked it up on Twitter – is much clearer: detox through the nasal doorway! Who would refuse such an offer after the festivities of late?
This sounds fascinating, I thought. Thus I ran a quick Medline search but only found this abstract:
BACKGROUND:
Ardita (facial paralysis) is a medical condition that disfigures or distorts the facial appearance of the sufferer causing facial asymmetry and malfunction. Ardita patients may benefit from considering alternative treatments such as Ayurveda, including Taila Nasya (nasal instillation of medicated oil).
OBJECTIVES:
To synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of different Nasya oils in the treatment of Ardita.
INCLUSION CRITERIA TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
Studies conducted on adult sufferers (18-70 years) of Ardita (chronic or acute) in any setting were considered. Studies including participants who were pregnant or suffered allergic rhinitis, fever, intracranial tumor/hemorrhage and bilateral facial palsy were excluded.
INTERVENTION(S)/COMPARATOR(S):
Standalone treatment of Nasya (at all dosages and frequencies) compared to Nasya in combination with other Ayurvedic treatments was considered. Comparisons between different interventions including Taila Nasya alone, Taila Nasya in combination with other Ayurvedic interventions and Ayurvedic interventions that did not include Taila Nasya were also considered.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:
Changes in Ardita symptoms, including facial distortion, speech disorders and facial pain, were measured.
TYPES OF STUDIES:
All quantitative study designs (experimental, quasi-experimental and observational) were considered.
SEARCH STRATEGY:
Relevant studies were identified following a comprehensive literature search. References provided within these key studies identified additional resources. Indian universities were also contacted for results of Ardita studies undertaken in their institutions.A three-step search strategy aimed to find studies of published and unpublished studies was undertaken. Studies published in the English language were considered for inclusion, irrespective of publication date/year. Following an initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL, the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe each articles were analyzed. From the identified keywords and index terms, searches were undertaken across all relevant databases such as PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Scopus, Centre for Review and Dissemination databases, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), EMBASE, EBM Reviews, DHARA, Google Scholar, MedNar and ProQuest Dissertations. Finally, reference lists of identified theses and articles were searched for additional studies. Universities and website operators related to Ayurvedic research in India were contacted, including the National Institute of Ayurveda for relevant studies. Besides this, the University of Adelaide librarian was contacted to retrieve those studies identified in the reference lists of theses and articles.
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY:
Studies were critically assessed by the review author and a secondary reviewer prior to inclusion in the review using the standardized critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
DATA EXTRACTION:
Data was extracted by the primary reviewer using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
DATA SYNTHESIS:
Different interventions and comparators across studies precluded meta-analysis. Narrative synthesis was performed.
RESULTS:
Only two pseudo randomized studies with a small number of participants met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. One study with 20 participants, divided equally into two groups compared the effectiveness of two nasal instillations in alleviating four Ardita symptoms. The second study of 15 participants each in two groups compared the effectiveness of nasal instillation with placement of medicated oil on the head on seven Ardita symptoms. Observational measurements of Ardita symptoms were graded as Mild, Moderate or Marked at baseline and after one month. The study conducted on 30 participants using Nasya intervention showed participants had better relief from the symptoms of facial pain, speech disorder and earache within the range of 78.2% to 90.9%, graded as Marked. Along with statistical data available in the studies, this review found low levels of evidence favoring Taila Nasya intervention. The review did not include any studies examining effectiveness of Nasya compared to conventional treatment for Ardita.
CONCLUSIONS:
This review presents extremely limited evidence from only two small experimental studies that administration of Nasya oil alone may provide some relief from Ardita symptoms of facial distortion, speech disorder, inability to shut eyelids/upward eye rolling and dribbling of saliva in adult patients. No strong conclusions may be drawn from the evidence included in the review due to the limited number of studies, limited number of participants and poor quality of studies.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:
Practitioners should advice Ardita patients that there is extremely limited evidence suggesting the potential effectiveness of Nasya oils alone or Nasya in conjunction with other Ayurvedic treatments in managing symptoms. However, given the absence of a strong evidence base, practitioners should be guided by clinical wisdom and patient preference.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH:
Well controlled clinical trials comparing standalone Nasya therapy to other Ayurvedic treatments and/or conventional medicine for Ardita symptoms need to be conducted to examine the relative effectiveness of different Nasya oils in treating.
I think you agree, that’s nothing to write home about.
So, on second thought I might give Nasya (or whatever it is called) a miss. The same applies, by the way, to any other form of detox.
Are you hungover today? you will be pleased to hear that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has a lot to offer – at least this is what its enthusiasts think.
Homeopaths swear by Nux Vomica as the first remedy to think of with hangover headaches, but it is also excellent for headaches from overwork, indigestion headaches and headaches accompanying constipation. Use it when your headache is worse when you cough or bend down, and headaches that aggravate when you move your eyes. If you have overeaten and drunk too much alcohol, you may also feel nauseous and want to vomit to make yourself feel better but find you cannot. If this describes your symptoms then Nux Vomica is the remedy for you.
When I worked as a homeopath, I and others often tried this treatment – it never worked. More importantly, there is not a jot of evidence that it does.
Some people recommend artichoke extract. I say: forget it. Here is why:
BACKGROUND:
Extract of globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus) is promoted as a possible preventive or cure for alcohol-induced hangover symptoms. However, few rigorous clinical trials have assessed the effects of artichoke extract, and none has examined the effects in relation to hangovers. We undertook this study to test whether artichoke extract is effective in preventing the signs and symptoms of alcohol-induced hangover.
METHODS:
We recruited healthy adult volunteers between 18 and 65 years of age to participate in a randomized double-blind crossover trial. Participants received either 3 capsules of commercially available standardized artichoke extract or indistinguishable, inert placebo capsules immediately before and after alcohol exposure. After a 1-week washout period the volunteers received the opposite treatment. Participants predefined the type and amount of alcoholic beverage that would give them a hangover and ate the same meal before commencing alcohol consumption on the 2 study days. The primary outcome measure was the difference in hangover severity scores between the artichoke extract and placebo interventions. Secondary outcome measures were differences between the interventions in scores using a mood profile questionnaire and cognitive performance tests administered 1 hour before and 10 hours after alcohol exposure.
RESULTS:
Fifteen volunteers participated in the study. The mean number (and standard deviation) of alcohol units (each unit being 7.9 g, or 10 mL, of ethanol) consumed during treatment with artichoke extract and placebo was 10.7 (3.1) and 10.5 (2.4) respectively, equivalent to 1.2 (0.3) and 1.2 (0.2) g of alcohol per kilogram body weight. The volume of nonalcoholic drink consumed and the duration of sleep were similar during the artichoke extract and placebo interventions. None of the outcome measures differed significantly between interventions. Adverse events were rare and were mild and transient.
INTERPRETATION:
Our results suggest that artichoke extract is not effective in preventing the signs and symptoms of alcohol-induced hangover. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings.
Is there anything else you might want to try? I am afraid the answer is NO. Here is our systematic review on the subject:
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the clinical evidence on the effectiveness of any medical intervention for preventing or treating alcohol hangover.
DATA SOURCES:
Systematic searches on Medline, Embase, Amed, Cochrane Central, the National Research Register (UK), and ClincalTrials.gov (USA); hand searches of conference proceedings and bibliographies; contact with experts and manufacturers of commercial preparations. Language of publication was not restricted.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:
All randomised controlled trials of any medical intervention for preventing or treating alcohol hangover were included. Trials were considered if they were placebo controlled or controlled against a comparator intervention. Titles and abstracts of identified articles were read and hard copies were obtained. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validation were done independently by two reviewers. The Jadad score was used to evaluate methodological quality.
RESULTS:
Fifteen potentially relevant trials were identified. Seven publications failed to meet all inclusion criteria. Eight randomised controlled trials assessing eight different interventions were reviewed. The agents tested were propranolol, tropisetron, tolfenamic acid, fructose or glucose, and the dietary supplements Borago officinalis (borage), Cynara scolymus (artichoke), Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear), and a yeast based preparation. All studies were double blind. Significant intergroup differences for overall symptom scores and individual symptoms were reported only for tolfenamic acid, gamma linolenic acid from B officinalis, and a yeast based preparation.
CONCLUSION:
No compelling evidence exists to suggest that any conventional or complementary intervention is effective for preventing or treating alcohol hangover. The most effective way to avoid the symptoms of alcohol induced hangover is to practise abstinence or moderation.
Yes, it’s true, the only sound advice is moderation!
