TY - JOUR
T1 - Use of complementary and alternative medicine by food-allergic patients
AU - Ko, Jimmy
AU - Lee, Jennifer I.
AU - Muñoz-Furlong, Anne
AU - Li, Xiu Min
AU - Sicherer, Scott H.
PY - 2006/9
Y1 - 2006/9
N2 - Background: Interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasing. Use of CAM in food-allergic patients has not previously been evaluated. Objectives: To determine the prevalence of CAM use, the types of CAM modalities used, and opinions about CAM in food-allergic patients. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to attendees at a patient conference in 2002 and to patients at pediatric food allergy clinics in 2005. Results: Surveys were completed by 380 families. Respondents were mainly white, parents of children with multiple food allergies, and from the tri-state (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) area. Diagnostic modalities considered unproven or disproven (such as serum IgG4, electrodermal skin testing, and kinesiology) were used by 22% of respondents; CAM therapies were used by 18%. Participants used several types of CAM practitioners, the most common being chiropractors, homeopaths, and acupuncturists. Only 49% of patients using CAM disclosed this to their physicians. Efficacy ratings for CAM were poor. Regarding participants' opinions, an herbal therapy of equal efficacy, safety, and cost was preferred to a pharmaceutical drug (37% vs 12%; P = .001), but most participants (51%) had no preference or were unsure. Conclusion: Unproven or disproven diagnostic methods and CAM treatments were used by approximately 1 in 5 respondents. Those using CAM noted poor efficacy, but if given a choice, many would prefer herbal therapies to pharmaceutical drugs. Education regarding reliable testing for food allergy and further research on CAM therapies are warranted.
AB - Background: Interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasing. Use of CAM in food-allergic patients has not previously been evaluated. Objectives: To determine the prevalence of CAM use, the types of CAM modalities used, and opinions about CAM in food-allergic patients. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to attendees at a patient conference in 2002 and to patients at pediatric food allergy clinics in 2005. Results: Surveys were completed by 380 families. Respondents were mainly white, parents of children with multiple food allergies, and from the tri-state (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) area. Diagnostic modalities considered unproven or disproven (such as serum IgG4, electrodermal skin testing, and kinesiology) were used by 22% of respondents; CAM therapies were used by 18%. Participants used several types of CAM practitioners, the most common being chiropractors, homeopaths, and acupuncturists. Only 49% of patients using CAM disclosed this to their physicians. Efficacy ratings for CAM were poor. Regarding participants' opinions, an herbal therapy of equal efficacy, safety, and cost was preferred to a pharmaceutical drug (37% vs 12%; P = .001), but most participants (51%) had no preference or were unsure. Conclusion: Unproven or disproven diagnostic methods and CAM treatments were used by approximately 1 in 5 respondents. Those using CAM noted poor efficacy, but if given a choice, many would prefer herbal therapies to pharmaceutical drugs. Education regarding reliable testing for food allergy and further research on CAM therapies are warranted.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749179199&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60802-2
DO - 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60802-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 17042143
AN - SCOPUS:33749179199
SN - 1081-1206
VL - 97
SP - 365
EP - 369
JO - Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
JF - Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
IS - 3
ER -