National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health of the National Institutes of Health.

BackgroundOut-of-pocket expenditures of over $34 billion per year in the US are an apparent testament to a widely held belief that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies have benefits that outweigh their costs. However, regardless of public opinion, there is often little more than anecdotal evidence on the health and economic implications of CAM therapies. The objectives of this study are to present an overview of economic evaluation and to expand upon a previous review to examine the current scope and quality of CAM economic evaluations.MethodsThe data sources used were Medline, AMED, Alt-HealthWatch, and the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Citation Index; January 1999 to October 2004. Papers that reported original data on specific CAM therapies from any form of standard economic analysis were included. Full economic evaluations were subjected to two types of quality review. The first was a 35-item checklist for reporting quality, and the second was a set of four criteria for study quality (randomization, prospective collection of economic data, comparison to usual care, and no blinding).ResultsA total of 56 economic evaluations (39 full evaluations) of CAM were found covering a range of therapies applied to a variety of conditions. The reporting quality of the full evaluations was poor for certain items, but was comparable to the quality found by systematic reviews of economic evaluations in conventional medicine. Regarding study quality, 14 (36%) studies were found to meet all four criteria. These exemplary studies indicate CAM therapies that may be considered cost-effective compared to usual care for various conditions: acupuncture for migraine, manual therapy for neck pain, spa therapy for Parkinson's, self-administered stress management for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, pre- and post-operative oral nutritional supplementation for lower gastrointestinal tract surgery, biofeedback for patients with "functional" disorders (eg, irritable bowel syndrome), and guided imagery, relaxation therapy, and potassium-rich diet for cardiac patients.ConclusionWhereas the number and quality of economic evaluations of CAM have increased in recent years and more CAM therapies have been shown to be of good value, the majority of CAM therapies still remain to be evaluated.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies. PURPOSE The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. METHODS We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912. RESULTS Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=−0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.47 to −0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=−0.33, 95% CI −0.63 to −0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=−0.43, 95% CI −0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=−0.86, 95% CI −1.27 to −0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=−0.20, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=−0.10, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described. CONCLUSION There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

Arizona's statewide smoking ban decreased hospital admissions for AMI, stroke, asthma, and angina.

SSG vs. IND delivery did not significantly affect cancer screening behaviors, but both interventions produced robust achievement of screenings for previously nonadherent participants. Group-based promotora-led interventions supporting social involvement are recommended as a more cost-effective approach to achieving cancer screening among Latina women.

ObjectiveA comprehensive systematic review of economic evaluations of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) to establish the value of these therapies to health reform efforts.Data sourcesPubMed, CINAHL, AMED, PsychInfo, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched from inception through 2010. In addition, bibliographies of found articles and reviews were searched, and key researchers were contacted.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies of CIM were identified using criteria based on those of the Cochrane complementary and alternative medicine group. All studies of CIM reporting economic outcomes were included.Study appraisal methodsAll recent (and likely most cost-relevant) full economic evaluations published 2001–2010 were subjected to several measures of quality. Detailed results of higher-quality studies are reported.ResultsA total of 338 economic evaluations of CIM were identified, of which 204, covering a wide variety of CIM for different populations, were published 2001–2010. A total of 114 of these were full economic evaluations. And 90% of these articles covered studies of single CIM therapies and only one compared usual care to usual care plus access to multiple licensed CIM practitioners. Of the recent full evaluations, 31 (27%) met five study-quality criteria, and 22 of these also met the minimum criterion for study transferability (‘generalisability’). Of the 56 comparisons made in the higher-quality studies, 16 (29%) show a health improvement with cost savings for the CIM therapy versus usual care. Study quality of the cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of CIM was generally comparable to that seen in CUAs across all medicine according to several measures, and the quality of the cost-saving studies was slightly, but not significantly, lower than those showing cost increases (85% vs 88%, p=0.460).ConclusionsThis comprehensive review identified many CIM economic evaluations missed by previous reviews and emerging evidence of cost-effectiveness and possible cost savings in at least a few clinical populations. Recommendations are made for future studies.

The Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine, at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a symposium on "Acupuncture for Cancer Symptom Management" on June 16 and 17, 2016. Invited speakers included 19 scientists and scholars with expertise in acupuncture and cancer research from the United States, Europe, and China. The conference reviewed the NCI's grant funding on acupuncture, analyzed the needs of cancer patients, reviewed safety issues, and assessed both the current scientific evidence and research gaps of acupuncture in oncology care. Researchers and stakeholders presented and discussed basic mechanisms of acupuncture; clinical evidence for specific symptoms; and methodological challenges such as placebo effects, novel biostatistical methods, patient-reported outcomes, and comparative effectiveness research. This paper, resulting from the conference, summarizes both the current state of the science and clinical evidence of oncology acupuncture, identifies key scientific gaps, and makes recommendations for future research to increase understanding of both the mechanisms and effects of acupuncture for cancer symptom management.

Small sample size precludes definitive answers, but results from this preliminary trial suggest that homeopathy may be of value in the treatment of menopausal symptoms and improving quality of life, especially in those women not on tamoxifen. Larger studies should be carried out that also include healthy women who want to avoid hormone replacement therapy.