alternative medicine
The objective of this RCT was to compare the effects of
- spinal thrust-manipulation + electrical dry needling + various medications (TMEDN-group)
- to non-thrust peripheral joint/soft-tissue mobilization + exercise + interferential current + various medications(NTMEX-group)
on pain and disability in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS).
Patients with SAPS were randomized into the TMEDN group (n=73) or the NTMEX group (n=72). Primary outcomes included the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) and the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included Global Rating of Change (GROC) and medication intake. The treatment period was 6 weeks; with follow-up at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 3 months.
At 3 months, the TMEDN group experienced significantly greater reductions in shoulder pain and disability compared to the NTMEX group. Effect sizes were large in favour of the TMEDN group. At 3 months, a greater proportion of patients within the TMEDN group achieved a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) and stopped taking medication.
The authors concluded that cervicothoracic and upper rib thrust-manipulation combined with electrical dry needling resulted in greater reductions in pain, disability and medication intake than non-thrust peripheral joint/soft-tissue mobilization, exercise and interferential current in patients with SAPS. These effects were maintained at 3 months.
The authors of this trial have impressive looking affiliations:
- American Academy of Manipulative Therapy Fellowship in Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy, Montgomery, AL.
- Montgomery Osteopractic Physiotherapy & Acupuncture Clinic, Montgomery, AL.
- Research Physical Therapy Specialists, Columbia, SC.
- Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Spain.
- Cátedra de Clínica, Investigación y Docencia en Fisioterapia: Terapia Manual, Punción Seca y Ejercicio, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.
- Copper Queen Community Hospital, Bisbee, AZ.
- BenchMark Physical Therapy, Atlanta, GA.
- Eastside Medical Care Center, El Paso, TX.
- Department of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
- Tybee Wellness & Osteopractic, Tybee Island, Georgia, GA.
If one expected a well-designed study from all this collective expertise, one would have been disappointed.
Any such clinical trial should be answering a simple question: is therapy XX effective? It is about pinning an observed effect on to a treatment. It is about establishing cause and effect. It is about finding an answer to a clinically relevant question.
The above study does none of that. Even if we accepted its result as valid, it could be interpreted as meaning one of many different things, for instance:
- Acupuncture was effective.
- Dry needling was effective.
- The electrical current was effective.
- Mobilisation made things worse.
- Exercise made things worse.
- one or multiple positive or negative interactions between the therapies.
- The drugs in the experimental group were more effective than those taken by controls.
- The experimental group adhered to their drug prescriptions better than controls.
- Any mixture of the above.
So, the reader of this paper can chose which of the interpretations he or she prefers. I suggest that:
- Any researcher who designs a foreseeably nonsensical trial should go back to school.
- Any ethics committee that passes such a study needs to retire.
- Any funder who gives money for it wastes scarce resources.
- Any reviewer who recommends publication needs to learn about trial design.
- Any editor who publishes such a trial needs to go.
The point I am trying to make is that conducting a clinical trial comes with responsibilities. Poorly designed studies are not just a waste of resources, they are a disservice to patients, they undermine the public’s trust in science and they are unethical.
It is today exactly 8 years that I am writing this blog. To mark the occasion, I am trying to write my shortest post ever. It focusses on a question that has often occupied my mind and rarely leaves the comments sections of this blog: What makes a healthcare professional use a bogus SCAM therapy? Think, for instance, of any practitioner of homeopathy. What makes him or her tick? Why does (s)he practice homeopathy and not real medicine? After years of thinking about it, the answer turns out to be really quite simple. There are only three possibilities:
Practitioners who employ disproven treatments either
try to con you
or
they have been conned themselves
or
both.
________________________
Think of it, there is no other explanation!
If, however, you do know of another one, please let me know.
AND THANKS FOR MAKING THIS BLOG A SUCCESS.
- The main concern of the FoH seems to be boosting their membership. This suggests that their numbers are dwindling sharply. I wonder why. Is it because of the nasty sceptics? Or is it because the public is slowly understanding that homeopathics are placebos?
- No expertise or even previous exposure to science or healthcare seem to be needed. Considering that the successful candidate is expected to write grant applications, this seems surprising to say the least.
- No knowledge of homeopathy seems required. I find this odd. How is the ‘Chief Operating Officer’ going to understand the weird and wonderful world he/she is supposed to immerse into?
- Reputational management! What a great term! I had not heard it before. It makes sense in relation to Boris Johnson or Donald Trump. In connection with homeopathy, it is truly hilarious, I feel.
So, here it is:
- they offer a decent salary;
- they allow you to work from home most of the time;
- they require skills and expertise only in homeopathic doses.
Come on, Sandra, Lollypop, Dana, Heinrich, RG, Roger, Old Bob:
GO FOR IT!
Research by a reputable independent research company done for Securivita a German insurance company shows that those receiving homeopathic care were much better off. Over 15,700 patients were involved in the study which also used a comparison group.
The study showed that in a wide range of patients with various pathological problems that if they had homeopathic care they faired dramatically better than those just getting conventional medicine.
Children having homeopathy treatment from birth, were particularly healthier and with less problems. Over the three year study period, the number of children needing antibiotics decreased by 16.7 per cent in the homeopathy group, whereby it increased by 73.9 per cent in the conventional medical comparison group!
The number of hospitalizations in the comparison group increased by 32.6 per cent whereby in the homeopathy treatment group it decreased by 9.8 per cent!
Adults and children treated homoeopathically had dramatic improvements in allergies, dermatitis, asthma, just to name a few.
These are just a few examples of the remarkable benefits of homeopathic treatment outlined in the study by by the Leipzig Health Forum , an independent analytical institute specializing in health services conducted for Securvita Krankenkasse Insurer.
“We don’t need fewer, but more homeopathic doctors who will continue on this successful path,” says Götz Hachtmann , director of the health insurance company Securvita.
The study is in German and can be found here.
____________________________
Blessed are those who don’t read German (at least in this instance)!
As I am not amongst the blessed, I ought to tell you a bit about the ‘massive’ study. The OHR, the ‘OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHIC RESOURCE’ (btw what makes the OHR ‘official’?) claims that the study can be found here. The OHR is evidently not well enough resourced for translating the German text into English; if they were, they would know that the link goes not to a ‘study’ but to some kind of a glossy marketing brochure about the ‘study’ (there is no actual published scientific paper on the ‘study’). It provides hardly any relevant information; all we learn is that 15 700 individuals who regularly consulted homeopathic physicians were compared over a three year period to an equally sized control group who did not consult homeopathic doctors… And that’s essentially it! No further relevant details are offered.
By contrast, quite a bit of information is offered about the findings, for instance:
- In the homeopathy group, the hospitalisation rate of depressive patients dropped by 10%, while it increased in controls by 33%.
- The days off work dropped by 17% vs an increase in controls of 17%.
- The use of antibiotics decreased by 17% vs an increase of 74%.
And how do they explain these differences?
Yes, you guessed it:
they are due to homeopathy!
One does not need to have a perfumer’s nose to smell a few badly decomposing rats here, for example:
- We do not learn how many variables were tested in this ‘study’. Therefore, it is likely that the ‘results’ provided are the positive ones, while the not so positive potential effects of homeopathy remained unmentioned. Perhaps the death rate was higher in the homeopathy group? Perhaps they suffered more heart attacks? Perhaps they had a lower quality of life? Perhaps they caused more costs? Perhaps they committed more suicides? etc. etc.
- Even more obvious is the stench of selection bias. The individuals in the homeopathy group were clearly different from the controls to start with. They might have been more health conscious. They clearly were more cautious about antibiotics. They might have been of better general health. They might have been younger. They could have contained more women. They might have been more afraid of going into a hospital. They might have been keener to attend work. In fact, the only variable in which the two groups were comparable is sample size.
Even if we eventually we see this ‘study’ published in a peer-reviewed journal with full methodological details etc., it will not allow even the smartest spin-doctor to establish cause and effect. Its findings would not be more conclusive than those of previously discussed attempts to produce positive evidence for homeopathy. The ‘positive’ findings could have been the result of hundreds of causes, none of which are related to homeopathy.
In a nutshell: this new German ‘study’ is a textbook example for arguing in favour of conducting proper research rather that rampant pseudo-research.
But I must not always be so negative!!!
So, let me try to point out the positive sides of this ‘study’:
The ‘massive independent study’ is a true masterpiece of advertising and marketing for both Securivita and homeopathy.
Well done guys!
I am proud of you!
- That’s exactly the stuff needed for successfully misleading the public.
- That’s precisely the info required to increase your cash flow.
- That’s helpful ‘research’ for convincing politicians.
- That’s definitely the type of baloney to impresses the Ullmanns of this world.
- That’s even the sort of ‘science’ which the ‘OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHIC RESOURCE’ cannot recognise for what it truly is:
invalid junk.
This recent review claimed to evaluate the evidence on the use of human and veterinary homeopathy, evidence level 1a studies were considered. Focusing on the external evidence on the use of homeopathy in infections, some evidence level 1a, 1b, 2c studies, and a case report, are described in more detail.
In conclusion, evidence for the effectiveness of human and veterinary homeopathy in general, and in particular, of homeopathic treatment for infections, is available. Especially, individualized homeopathy demonstrates effects at all quality levels according to Cochrane criteria, even in the methodologically high-quality studies. As in most areas of veterinary medicine and medicine, further good/excellent studies are necessary. In compliance with the principles of homeopathy, further methodologically high-quality trials focusing on the homeopathic treatment of infections are the next logical step. The selection of the simile (individually fitting homeopathic medicinal product) by appropriately trained homeopathic doctors/veterinarians is essential for the effectiveness of homeopathy. Implementation of studies at university facilities is a prerequisite for quality assurance. Consequently, further integration of homeopathy at universities is a necessary requirement for the patients’ best interests.
Who wrote this bizarre paper?
The authors who state to have no conflicts of interest are
Researchers from the Department of Physiotherapy, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India, and the Mother Teresa Saket College of Physiotherapy, Saket, Panchkula, Haryana, India, have just published a systematic review which is remarkable in several ways. Let me therefore present to you the abstract unaltered:
Background: Spinal pain or misalignment is a very common disorder affecting a significant number of populations resulting in substantial disability and economic burden. Various manual therapeutic techniques such as spinal manipulations and mobilizations can be used to treat and manage pain and movement dysfunctions such as spinal mal-alignments and associated complications. These manual therapeutic techniques can affect the cardiovascular parameters.
Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effect of spinal manipulation and mobilization on cardiovascular parameters.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of spinal mobilization and manipulation on cardiovascular responses. Mean changes in Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) and Heart Rate (HR) were primary outcome measures. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analyses. Quality of the included studies was assessed by PEDro Rating scale. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane collaboration tool of risk of bias.
Results: Results of meta-analysis showed that there was statistically significant decrease in SBP ( MD=-4.56 , 95% CI=-9.20 , 0.08; p≤0.05 ) with moderate heterogeneity ( I2=75% , p<0.0002 ) in experimental group as compared to control group. There was statistically non-significant decrease in DBP ( MD=-1.96 , 95% CI=-4.60 , 0.69; p=0.15 ) with high heterogeneity ( I2=91% , p<0.00001 ), Change HR was statistically non-significant ( MD=-0.24 , 95% CI=-3.59 , 3.11; p=0.89 ) with moderate heterogeneity ( I2=60% , p=0.01 ). Exclusion of short duration studies in sensitivity analysis revealed a statistically significant change in DBP ( MD=-0.94 , 95% CCI=-1.85 , -0.03 ; p=0.04 ). However, the result was statistically non-significant for HR after sensitivity analysis.
Conclusion: Spinal manipulations and mobilizations may result in significant decrease of systolic as well as diastolic Blood Pressure.
After reading the full paper, I was uncertain whether to laugh or to cry. Then I decided for the former option.
Any paper that starts with the statement ‘spinal pain or misalignment is a very common disorder affecting a significant number of populations resulting in substantial disability and economic burden‘ can only be a hoax! In case you are uncertain about the reason of my amusement: spinal pain is not the same as spinal misalignment, and spinal misalignment (in the sense it is used here) is the figment of the imagination of a 18 carat charlatan called DD Palmer.
The rest of the article offers more superb hilarity: the authors write, for instance, that spinal malalignments (such as scoliosis) are mainly caused by body’s abnormal posture, asymmetries in bone growth and abnormalities of neuromuscular system. Scoliosis is an abnormal lateral curvature of the spine, not a spinal malalignment and certainly not one that can be treated with spinal manipulation.
Then the authors state that spinal pain and malalignment mainly occur due to structure deterioration, altered biomechanics and abnormal posture. Workplace physical and psychosocial factors, emotional problems, smoking, poor job satisfaction, awkward posture and poor work environment can be the possible risk factors for spinal pain and malalignment. This leads to various musculoskeletal, psychosomatic, cardiovascular and respiratory dysfunctions which affect the functional capacity of the patient as well as quality of life. Oh really?
So, the findings of the authors’ meta-analysis do suggest a tiny effect on blood pressure.
Compared to what?
In the paper, the review authors repeatedly try to make us believe it is compared to placebo. However, this is not true; mostly it was compared to no treatment.
Was the hypotensive effect verified in hypertensive patients?
No, it was measured mostly in healthy volunteers.
Is the effect clinically relevant?
No, I don’t think so!
Is it comparable to or better than the one achievable with established treatments for hypertension?
No! In fact it is much smaller.
Does that bother the authors?
No, on the contrary, they state that in this meta-analysis, spinal manipulation and mobilization resulted in statistically significant reduction in SBP. Therefore, it can be used as an adjuvant therapy for the management of hypertension.
Were the studies using spinal manipulation as an adjuvant therapy?
No, mostly not.
Is the effect lasting long enough to be relevant for the management of hypertension?
No.
I better stop here because already my whole body hurts from laughing so much. Please, do read the full text, if you are in need of some comic relief.
And, I almost forgot: many thanks to the Indian researchers for this hilarious hoax!
…
…
…
Or did you perhaps mean all that seriously?
This recent Cochrane review assessed the effects of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for post-caesarean pain. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing SCAM, alone or associated with other forms of pain relief, versus other treatments or placebo or no treatment, for the treatment of post-CS pain were included.
A total of 37 studies (3076 women) investigating 8 different SCAM therapies for post-CS pain relief were found. There was substantial heterogeneity among the trials. The primary outcome measures were pain and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures included vital signs, rescue analgesic requirement at 6 weeks after discharge; all of which were poorly reported or not reported at all.
Acupuncture/acupressure
The quality of the RCTs was low. Whether acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) have any effect on pain. Acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) may reduce pain at 12 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to 0.07; 130 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.26; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) have any effect on the risk of adverse effects.
Aromatherapy
Aromatherapy plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (mean difference (MD) -2.63 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% CI -3.48 to -1.77; 3 studies; 360 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -3.38 VAS, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.91; 1 study; 200 women; low-certainty evidence). The authors were uncertain whether aromatherapy plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety) compared with placebo plus analgesia.
Electromagnetic therapy
Electromagnetic therapy may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (MD -8.00, 95% CI -11.65 to -4.35; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -13.00 VAS, 95% CI -17.13 to -8.87; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence).
Massage
There were 6 RCTs (651 women), 5 of which were quasi-RCTs, comparing massage (foot and hand) plus analgesia versus analgesia. All the evidence relating to pain, adverse effects (anxiety), vital signs and rescue analgesic requirement was very low-certainty.
Music therapy
Music therapy plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.46; participants = 115; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), 24 hours (MD -1.79, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.91; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence), and also when compared with analgesia at one hour (MD -2.11, 95% CI -3.11 to -1.10; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -2.69, 95% CI -3.67 to -1.70; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether music therapy plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety), when compared with placebo plus analgesia because the quality of evidence is very low.
Reiki
The investigators were uncertain whether Reiki plus analgesia compared with analgesia alone has any effect on pain, adverse effects, vital signs or rescue analgesic requirement because the quality of evidence is very low (one study, 90 women). Relaxation Relaxation may reduce pain compared with standard care at 24 hours (MD -0.53 VAS, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.01; 1 study; 60 women; low-certainty evidence).
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)
TENS (versus no treatment) may reduce pain at one hour (MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.35 to -1.17; 1 study; 40 women; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -1.10 VAS, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.82; 3 studies; 238 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -0.70 VAS, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce heart rate (MD -7.00 bpm, 95% CI -7.63 to -6.37; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and respiratory rate (MD -1.10 brpm, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.94; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The authors were uncertain whether TENS plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on pain at six hours or 24 hours, or vital signs because the quality of evidence is very low (two studies, 92 women).
The authors concluded that some SCAM therapies may help reduce post-CS pain for up to 24 hours. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety and we have no evidence about the longer-term effects on pain. Since pain control is the most relevant outcome for post-CS women and their clinicians, it is important that future studies of SCAM for post-CS pain measure pain as a primary outcome, preferably as the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. Measuring pain as a dichotomous variable would improve the certainty of evidence and it is easy to understand for non-specialists. Future trials also need to be large enough to detect effects on clinical outcomes; measure other important outcomes as listed in this review, and use validated scales.
I feel that the Cochrane Collaboration does itself no favours by publishing such poor reviews. This one is both poorly conceived and badly reported. In fact, I see little reason to deal with pain after CS differently than with post-operative pain in general. Some of the modalities discussed are not truly SCAM. Most of the secondary endpoints are irrelevant. The inclusion of adverse effects as a primary endpoint seems nonsensical considering that SCAM studies are notoriously bad at reporting them. Many of the allegedly positive findings rely on trial designs that cannot control for placebo effects (e.g A+B versus B); therefore they tell us nothing about the effectiveness of the therapy.
Most importantly, the conclusions are not helpful. I would have simply stated that none of the SCAM modalities are supported by convincing evidence as treatments for pain control after CS.
Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have limited treatment options. Alongside conventional anticancer treatment, additive homeopathy might help to alleviate side effects of conventional therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate whether additive homeopathy might influence quality of life (QoL) and survival in NSCLC patients.
In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm, multi-centre, phase III study, the researchers evaluated the possible effects of additive homeopathic treatment compared to placebo in patients with stage IV NSCLC, with respect to QoL in the two randomized groups and survival time in all three groups. Treated patients visited the university teaching hospital every 9 weeks: 150 patients with stage IV NSCLC were included in the study.
- 51 patients received individualized homeopathic remedies plus conventional treatments,
- 47 received placebo plus conventional treatments,
- 52 control patients without any homeopathic treatment were treated with conventional therapies and observed for survival only.
For groups 1 and 2, the study was double-blind. The constituents of the different homeopathic remedies were mainly of plant, mineral, or animal origin. The remedies were manufactured by stepwise dilution and succussion, thereby preparing stable GMP grade formulations.
QoL as well as functional and symptom scales showed significant improvement in the homeopathy group when compared with placebo after 9 and 18 weeks of homeopathic treatment (p < .001). Median survival time was significantly longer in the homeopathy group (435 days) versus placebo (257 days; p = .010) as well as versus control (228 days; p < .001). Survival rate in the homeopathy group differed significantly from placebo (p = .020) and from control (p < .001).
The authors concluded that QoL improved significantly in the homeopathy group compared with placebo. In addition, survival was significantly longer in the homeopathy group versus placebo and control. A higher QoL might have contributed to the prolonged survival. The study suggests that homeopathy positively influences not only QoL but also survival. Further studies including other tumour entities are warranted.
First of all, let me thank my friend Dana Ullman for alerting me to this new and interesting study. I have read what seems to be the full paper several times and have to admit that it puzzles me (and perhaps this version is just some type of pre-publication paper). Firstly, there seems to be no methods section (the abstract is followed by several tables and a discussion), and I am left guessing much of the details. Secondly, the paper raises several questions in my mind:
- What is the purpose of group 3? The authors call it a control group and state it allows assessing the real homeopathic effect on the homeopathic cohort as the real effect will be the natural historical effect minus the placebo effect and the homeopathic effect. Does that make sense?
- Was the study under-powered? From my reading of the text, the answer seems to be yes.
- What is the full list of conventional treatments the patients received, and did they differ between the 3 groups?
- If I understand it correctly, the study patients did not receive immuno-oncological therapy. Does that fact not render the study unethical?
- What homeopathic potencies were prescribed in group 1? The paper says: The constituents of the different homeopathic remedies were mainly of plant, mineral, or animal origin. This is unlikely, as most homeopathic remedies contain nothing.
- The authors seem to have used individualised homeopathy according to Hahnemann’s instructions. Did Hahnemann not strictly forbid combining his approach with other types of treatment?
- How well respected is THE ONCLOLOGIST, the journal that published the paper?
- Was the article peer-reviewed? If so, by whom?
- Was the placebo indistinguishable from the verum?
- Was the success of patient-blinding checked?
- Have similar findings regarding survival been reported previously? The authors call this finding ‘unexpected’; I find it more than that; it is baffling.
- Should we accept such surprising findings, or would it be more prudent to wait until independent replications are available?
- The first author of this trial is Prof Frass who has featured on this blog several times before (see for instance here, here, here, here and here). Frass has published several studies of homeopathy and invariably manages to produce positive results. Am I the only one to find this odd?
I would be most grateful, if the readers of this blog could assist me in finding answers to some of the above questions.
This study assessed the patterns of dietary supplement usage among cancer survivors in the United States in a population-based setting. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) datasets (1999-2016) were accessed, and adult respondents (≥ 20 years old) with a known status of cancer diagnosis and a known status of dietary supplements intake were included. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was then used to assess factors associated with dietary supplements intake. Moreover, and to evaluate the impact of dietary supplements on overall survival among respondents with cancer, multivariable Cox regression analysis was conducted.
A total of 49,387 respondents were included in the current analysis, including a total of 4,575 respondents with cancer. Among respondents with cancer, 3,024 (66.1%) respondents reported the use of dietary supplements; while 1,551 (33.9%) did not report the use of dietary supplements. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors associated with the use of dietary supplements included:
- older age (OR: 1.028; 95% CI: 1.027-1.030);
- white race (OR for black race vs. white race: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.63-0.72);
- female gender (OR for males vs. females: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.53-0.59),
- higher income (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.11-1.14),
- higher educational level (0.59; 95% CI: 0.56-0.63),
- better self-reported health (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.17-1.58),
- health insurance (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.27-1.44),
- history of cancer (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.10-1.31).
Using multivariable Cox regression analysis and within the subgroup of respondents with a history of cancer, the use of dietary supplements was not found to be associated with a difference in overall survival (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.98-1.30).
The authors concluded that dietary supplement use has increased in the past two decades among individuals with cancer in the United States, and this increase seems to be driven mainly by an increase in the use of vitamins. The use of dietary supplements was not associated with any improvement in overall survival for respondents with cancer in the current study cohort.
Many cancer patients, when they first get diagnosed, are tested for vitamin D levels and found to be low or borderline. Consequently, they get a prescription for supplements. Other than this, there is rarely an indication to take any vitamins or other dietary supplements. Yet, cancer patients take them because they think these ‘natural’ preparations can do no harm (and because the industry can be persuasive [there is big money at stake] and the odd breed of ‘integrated’ oncologists might even recommend them). Sadly, this assumption is not correct. The biggest danger, in my view, is the possibility of supplements to interact with one of the many drugs that cancer patients need to take. So, in a way, it is reassuring that, on average, there is no detrimental effect on overall survival.
The paper will probably also reignite the perennial discussion about the effects of vitamin C on the natural history of cancer. My understanding is that there is none (and this verdict seems to be supported by the findings reported here). But I am, of course, aware that this is a ‘hot potato’ and that some readers will think differently. To them I say: please show me the evidence.
A 2020 article that I just came across concluded with this rather remarkable statement:
High-dose enzyme therapy is a natural cancer protocol that has been highly successful in treating this much-feared disease.
Since we can find a plethora of similar claims on social media and elsewhere, it is high time, I think, to dedicate a post to this alleged cancer cure.
Enzyme therapy involves the administration of proteolytic enzymes by mouth. Proteolytic enzymes are large molecules that are nevertheless said to be absorbed in the gut before they are dispersed into different compartments of the body where they can be detected in various concentrations. Proteolytic enzymes (serine endopeptidases such as trypsin or chymotrypsin and cysteine endo-proteinases such as bromelain and papain or combinations of those enzymes) have long been available for diverse medical indications, including cancer. They are claimed to exert anticancer activities by restoring the reduced cytotoxic activity of patients’ sera.
Enzyme therapy has been subjected to experimental investigations and to a few studies in cancer patients. A systematic review claimed that, for plasmacytoma patients, systemic enzyme therapy was shown to increase the response rates, the duration of remissions, and the overall survival times.[1]
This statement is based on just one study. Here is its abstract[2]:
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of an additive therapy with an oral enzyme (OE) preparation given for more than 6 months additionally to standard combination chemotherapy (vincristine/melphalan/cyclophosphamide/prednisone (VMCP)- or methylprednisolone/ vincristine/CCNU/cyclophosphamide/melphalan (MOCCA)-regimen) in the primary treatment of patients with multiple myeloma stages I-III.
Methods: A cohort of 265 patients with multiple myeloma stages I-III was consecutively treated at our institution in two parallel groups (control group (n = 99): chemotherapy +/-OE for less than 6 months; OE-group (n = 166): chemotherapy + OE for more than 6 months). The median follow-up time in the stages I, II, and III for the OE-group was 61, 37, and 46.5 months, respectively; for the control group the respective values were 33, 51.5, and 31.5 months. The primary endpoint of the study was disease-specific survival. Secondary endpoints were response to therapy, duration of first response and side effects. The chosen method for evaluation was the technique of a retrolective cohort analysis with a concurrent control group. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis was done with the Cox proportional hazards model.
Results: Significantly higher overall response rates and longer duration of remissions were observed in the OE-group. Primary responders showed a longer mean survival time than non-responders. Additive therapy with OE given for more than 6 months decreased the hazard of death for patients at all stages of disease by approximately 60%. Observation time was not long enough to estimate the median survival for patients at stages I and II; for stage III patients it was 47 months in the control group versus 83 months for the patients treated with OE (P = 0.0014) which means a 3-year gain of survival time. Significant prognostic factors for survival, in the Cox regression analysis, were stage of disease and therapy with OE. The OE-therapy was generally well tolerated (3.6% of patients with mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms).
Conclusion: OEs represent a promising new additive therapy in multiple myeloma which will be further evaluated in a randomized phase III trial in the USA.
My searches located no prospective clinical trials supporting the notion that enzyme therapy is an effective cancer cure for any type of human cancer. So, what about the bold statement quoted above? In my view, it is a dangerous and highly irresponsible claim that endangers the lives of many vulnerable cancer patients desperately looking for alternative cancer cures.
REFERENCES
[1] Beuth J. Proteolytic enzyme therapy in evidence-based complementary oncology: fact or fiction? Integr Cancer Ther. 2008 Dec;7(4):311-6. doi: 10.1177/1534735408327251. PMID: 19116226.
[2] Sakalová A, Bock PR, Dedík L, Hanisch J, Schiess W, Gazová S, Chabronová I, Holomanova D, Mistrík M, Hrubisko M. Retrolective cohort study of an additive therapy with an oral enzyme preparation in patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2001 Jul;47 Suppl:S38-44. doi: 10.1007/s002800170008. PMID: 11561871.
