BackgroundWe aimed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers, and to assess the knowledge of and attitudes toward CAM use in oncology among health care professionals.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional questionnaire survey conducted in a single institution in Ireland. Survey was performed in outpatient and inpatient settings involving cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers. Clinicians and allied health care professionals were asked to complete a different questionnaire.ResultsIn 676 participants including 219 cancer patients; 301 non-cancer volunteers and 156 health care professionals, the overall prevalence of CAM use was 32.5% (29.1%, 30.9% and 39.7% respectively in the three study cohorts). Female gender (p < 0.001), younger age (p = 0.004), higher educational background (p < 0.001), higher annual household income (p = 0.001), private health insurance (p = 0.001) and non-Christian (p < 0.001) were factors associated with more likely CAM use. Multivariate analysis identified female gender (p < 0.001), non-Christian (p = 0.001) and private health insurance (p = 0.015) as independent predictors of CAM use. Most health care professionals thought they did not have adequate knowledge (58.8%) nor were up to date with the best evidence (79.2%) on CAM use in oncology. Health care professionals who used CAM were more likely to recommend it to patients (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a similarly high prevalence of CAM use among oncology health care professionals, cancer and non cancer patients. Patients are more likely to disclose CAM usage if they are specifically asked. Health care professionals are interested to learn more about various CAM therapies and have poor evidence-based knowledge on specific oncology treatments. There is a need for further training to meet to the escalation of CAM use among patients and to raise awareness of potential benefits and risks associated with these therapies.

The pharmacokinetics of the anti-inflammatory drug benzydamine were determined after intravenous infusion of 5 mg to six healthy male subjects. Benzydamine was characterized as a drug of relatively low systemic clearance (ca. 160 ml min-1) but high volume of distribution (ca. 1101); the apparent terminal half-life in plasma was ca. 8 h. Benzydamine was well absorbed after oral administration, as indicated by a mean systemic availability of 87 per cent. However, absorption of the drug was low (less than 10 per cent of the dose) after its use by male subjects as a mouthwash, or after its application to female subjects as dermal cream and vaginal douche preparations. The data suggest that benzydamine is generally not well absorbed through the skin and non-specialized mucosae, thereby limiting unrequired systemic exposure to this drug when it is used by these routes.

No abstract

PURPOSE: To provide Standards on the basis of evidence and expert consensus for a pilot of the Oncology Medical Home (OMH) certification program. The OMH model is a system of care delivery that features coordinated, efficient, accessible, and evidence-based care and includes a process for measurement of outcomes to facilitate continuous quality improvement. The OMH pilot is intended to inform further refinement of Standards for OMH model implementation. METHODS: An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on the topics of OMH, clinical pathways, and survivorship care plans was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Using this evidence base and an informal consensus process, the Expert Panel developed a set of OMH Standards. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: Three comparative peer-reviewed studies of OMH met the inclusion criteria. In addition, the results from 16 studies of clinical pathways and one systematic review of survivorship care plans informed the evidence review. Limitations of the evidence base included the small number of studies of OMH and lack of longer-term outcomes data. More data were available to inform the specific Standards for pathways and survivorship care; however, outcomes were mixed for the latter intervention. The Expert Panel concluded that in the future, practices should be encouraged to publish the results of OMH interventions in peer-reviewed journals to improve the evidence base. STANDARDS: Standards are provided for OMH in the areas of patient engagement, availability and access to care, evidence-based medicine, equitable and comprehensive team-based care, quality improvement, goals of care, palliative and end-of-life care discussions, and chemotherapy safety. Additional information, including a Standards implementation manual, is available at www.asco.org/standards .