Skip to main content
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2008 Mar 1;58(548):208–209. doi: 10.3399/bjgp08X279562

Complementary and alternative medicine: what the NHS should be funding?

Edzard Ernst
PMCID: PMC2249806  PMID: 18318982

Chronically embedded in the tension between Royal patronage and scientific reasoning, the UK debate about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is heating up. Currently the Academy of Medical Sciences is developing a ‘CAM policy paper’, the King's Fund is trying to reach a ‘consensus on appropriate research methods’ in CAM, the Arthritis Research Campaign is ‘reviewing the role of CAM in the management of rheumatic diseases’, and the Prince of Wales Foundation for Integrated Health are about to publish guidelines on the role of CAM in mental health. In November 2007, the Lancet (again) published several critical comments on homeopathy and, in December 2007, the government's most senior scientist, Sir David King, warned that homeopathy ‘is a risk to the population’.1 Patients are being systematically misled2 and remain confused: of the 21 questions most frequently asked by consumers to NHS Direct, six related to CAM.3 Even GPs are often uncertain how to advise their patients, and decision makers or regulators struggle when forced to decide what the NHS should pay for.

THE CRITERIA

If the NHS's commitment to evidence-based medicine is serious the criteria for NHS funding are clear. Firstly a treatment should be demonstrably effective. Secondly it should be reasonably safe. Thirdly it should be affordable. Fourthly it should compare favourably in the aforementioned domains with other therapeutic options.4 But this is merely theory; in practice, things can turn out to be a little more complex.

RISK–BENEFIT

My team and I have extensively reviewed the effectiveness and safety of CAM.5,6 Table 1 is my attempt to compress this work into a nutshell by selectively listing those interventions which are backed by positive and sound evidence. The result is a meagre list of 20 treatments with several notable surprises. For instance, acupuncture, which is often promoted as a panacea, is effective for some conditions but not for others. Many popular CAM treatments are absent from Table 1, simply because of a lack of compellingly positive evidence. Kava, a herbal anxiolytic, is clearly effective but is probably not safe, and Bach Flower remedies might be safe but are not effective.5,6 Other excluded treatments are homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, spiritual healing, and dozens of herbal medicines. Perhaps the most remarkable ‘absentee’ is spinal manipulation; it has been shown to be as effective (or ineffective) as standard care for alleviating back pain,7 but it is associated with frequent, moderately severe adverse effects and less frequent, serious risks.8

Table 1.

Treatmentsa which demonstrably generate more good than harm.

Treatment Condition Cost Conventional options
Acupuncture Nausea/vomiting Cbc Pme

Osteoarthritis Cbc Pme

African plum (Pygeum africanum) Benign prostatic hyperplasia Moderate Pse

Aromatherapy/massage Cancer palliation Cbc Pse

Co-enzyme Q10 Hypertension Low Pme

Ginkgo biloba Alzheimer's disease Low Pme

Peripheral arterial disease Low Pme

Guar gum Diabetes Low Pme

Hypercholesterolaemia Low Pme

Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) Congestive heart failure Low Pse

Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) Chronic venous insufficiency Low Pse

Hypnosis Labour pain Moderate Pme

Massage Anxiety Cbc Pme

Melatonin Insomnia Low Pme

Music therapy Anxiety Low Pme

Padma 28b Peripheral arterial disease Moderate Pme

Phytodolorb Osteoarthritis Moderate Pme

Rheumatoid arthritis Moderate Pme

Red clover (Trifolium pratense) Menopause Moderate Pme

Relaxation Anxiety Low Pme

Insomnia Low Pme

S-Adenosylmethionine Osteoarthritis Low Pme

Saw palmetto (Sereona repens) Benign prostatic hyperplasia Moderate Pse

Soy Hypercholesterolaemia Moderate Pme

St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) Depression Moderate Pse
a

excludes diet, vitamins, biofeedback, and preventative interventions. Cbc = can be considerable. Pme = probably more effective. Pse = probably similarly effective.

b

propriety preparation of several herbs. Included are the treatments which are rated as being backed up by a maximum weight of evidence demonstrating effectiveness for the condition in question.5

Ironically, those treatments that do demonstrably generate more good than harm are not commonly prescribed in the UK. Fourteen of the 20 therapies listed in Table 1, are supplements of natural (mostly herbal) substances which British GPs usually know little about. Herbalists prefer to prescribe individualised herbal mixtures for which there is no evidence of effectiveness at all.9

COST

Putting cost into the equation complicates matters even further. Sound cost-effectiveness data for CAM are extremely scarce.5 The intuitive assumption of enthusiasts that CAM is value for money turns out to be pure wishful thinking.10 Interventions that involve a prolonged series of treatments at £50–100 each are clearly not cheap. A recent undercover investigation showed that the average cost for a cancer patient seeking treatment from six different London-based CAM practitioners amounted to £6107 per therapist.11

COMPARISON WITH CONVENTIONAL OPTIONS

Finally, we have to ask how the risk–benefit profiles of the CAM options in Table 1 compare to conventional treatments. This is where things change from complicated to nebulous. There is little else than conjecture to reply on; comparative studies of high quality are not available. Table 1 includes my best shot at reasonable guesstimates.

EVALUATION BY NICE?

So what should the NHS be paying for? The best way towards answering this question may well be a proper, systematic assessment by NICE.12 So far, the government has resisted the mounting pressure to instruct NICE accordingly. Instead, the Department of Health recently issued a statement that NICE already ‘consider complementary therapies alongside conventional treatments when developing clinical guidelines’.13 This must be the reddest herring in the alternative pond! True, the NHS guidelines on multiple sclerosis, for example, do mention complementary therapies 64 times in total).14 However, the key sentence reads as follows:

‘A person with MS who wishes to consider or try an alternative therapy should be recommended to evaluate any alternative therapy themselves, including the risk and the cost (financial and convenience)’.14

CONCLUSION

The evidence summarised in Table 1 and in more detail elsewhere5,6 gives valuable pointers as to where future systematic evaluations (by NICE or other institutions) might reasonably focus. It also reveals where further primary research is likely to be most fruitful. For clinicians, it provides a practical guide as to which treatments they might want to recommend to their patients who are often all too keen to learn more about CAM. However, most of all this remains woefully tentative — the only certainty in CAM, it seems, is that uncertainty abounds.

REFERENCES

  • 1.MacRae F. Homeopathy is putting people's lives at risk, warns top scientist. Daily Mail. 2007;7 Dec http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=500231&in_page_id=1965 (accessed 30 Jan 2008) [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pinder M, editor. Complementary healthcare: a guide for patients. London: The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wills S, Campbell F. Frequently asked questions about medicines — a pilot project for NHS Direct. The Pharmaceutical Journal. 2007;278:140–141. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.2000. Lords Report. House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee Sixth Report: London.
  • 5.Ernst E, Pittler MH, Wider B, Boddy K. The desktop guide to complementary and alternative medicine. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Elsevier Mosby; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ernst E, Pittler M, Wider B, Boddy K. Oxford handbook of complementary medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, Yu Emily I, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy for low-backpain. Cochrance Database Syst Rev. 2004;1 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000447.pub2. CD000447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ernst E. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:330–338. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Guo R, Canter PH, Ernst E. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials of individualised herbal medicine in any indication. Postgrad Med. 2007;83:633–637. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2007.060202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Canter PH, Thompson Coon J, Ernst E. Cost effectiveness of complementary treatments in the United Kingdom: systematic review. BMJ. 2005;331:881. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38625.575903.79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Calman B. Cancer cure or quackery? Daily Mail. 2006;14 Feb:38. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Franck L, Chantler C, Dixon M. Should NICE evaluate complementary and alternative medicine? BMJ. 2007;334:506–507. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39122.512211.BE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Samarasekera U. Pressure grows against homeopathy in the UK. Lancet. 2007;370:1677–1678. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61708-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Multiple sclerosis. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2003. Clinical Guideline 8. [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES