Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 1173–1189 | Cite as

Use and Safety of Anthroposophic Medications in Chronic Disease

A 2-Year Prospective Analysis
  • Harald J. Hamre
  • Claudia M. Witt
  • Anja Glockmann
  • Wilfried Tröger
  • Stefan N. Willich
  • Helmut Kiene
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background and objective: Anthroposophic medications (AMED) are prescribed by physicians in 56 countries worldwide and are used for the treatment of a variety of conditions. However, safety data on long-term use of AMED from large prospective studies are sparse. The objective of this analysis was to determine the frequency of patient-reported and physician-assessed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to AMED in outpatients using AMED for chronic diseases over a 2-year period.

Methods: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study involving 131 medical practices in Germany. In total, 662 consecutive outpatients aged 1–75 years were enrolled in the study. The patients were using AMED for mental (primarily depression and fatigue), musculoskeletal, respiratory, neurological and other chronic diseases. Main outcome measures were use of AMED and ADRs to AMED.

Results: Throughout the 2-year follow-up, patients used 949 different AMED for a total of 11 487 patient-months. The origin of AMED was mineral (8.1%, 77 of 949 AMED), botanical (41.8%), zoological (7.8%), chemically defined (10.5%) and mixed (31.7%). Most frequently used AMED ingredients were Viscum album (11.5%, 76 of 662 patients), Bryophyllum (9.4%), Arnica (7.9%) and Silicea (7.7%). Non-AMED products were used by 94.2% of patients for a total of 11 202 patient-months; 45.2% of this use was accounted for by medication for the CNS, the cardiovascular system and the alimentary tract and metabolism.

A total of 1861 adverse events (AEs) were documented. The most frequent AEs were non-specific symptoms, signs and findings (International Classification of Diseases [10th Edition] R00-R99: 27.6%, 513 of 1861 AEs), musculoskeletal (M00-M99: 16.9%), respiratory (J00-J99: 8.2%) and digestive diseases (K00-K93: 6.6%). No serious AEs attributable to any medication occurred. Out of the 1861 reported AEs, 284 (15.3%) AEs were suspected by the physician or the patient to be an adverse reaction to non-medication therapy (n = 42 AEs), non-AMED (n = 187) or AMED (n = 55 AEs in 29 patients). Twenty of these 29 patients had confirmed ADRs to 21 AMED. These ADRs were local reactions to topical application (n = 6 patients), systemic hypersensitivity (n = 1) and aggravation of pre-existing symptoms (n = 13). In ten patients, AMED was stopped due to ADRs; two patients had ADRs of severe intensity. Median number of days with ADRs was 7 (range 1–39 days). All ADRs subsided, none were serious. The frequency of confirmed ADRs to AMED was 2.2% (21 of 949) of all different AMED used, 3.0% (20 of 662) of AMED users and one ADR per 382 patient-months of AMED use.

Conclusion: In this 2-year prospective study, AMED therapy was generally well tolerated.

Keywords

Administration Frequency Febrile Convulsion Anthroposophic Medicine Concomitant Illness Suspected Adverse Reaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Software-AG Stiftung, Innungskrankenkasse Hamburg and Wala Heilmittel GmbH, with supplementary grants from Deutsche BKK, Betriebskrankenkasse des Bundesverkehrsministeriums, Zukunftsstiftung Gesundheit, Mahle Stiftung and Dr. Hauschka Stiftung. The sponsors had no influence on design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. Dr Hamre has received other restricted research grants from Wala and Weleda within the last 5 years. Otherwise, all authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

We thank J Eisenbraun, Abnoba, S Schmidt, Helixor, P Vögele and U Sobeck, Wala, and J Öxle and J Peschke, Weleda for providing data on AMED use and safety and GS Kienle for helpful discussions. We also thank an anonymous reviewer for detailed and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Our special thanks go to the study physicians and patients for participating.

References

  1. 1.
    Steiner R, Wegman I. Extending practical medicine: fundamental principles based on the science of the spirit. GA 27. Bristol: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    1924–2004 Sektion für Anthroposophische Medizin. Standortbestimmung/Arbeitsperspektiven. Dornach: Freie Hochschule für Geisteswissenschaft, 2004Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anthroposophic Pharmaceutical Codex APC. Dornach: The International Association of Anthroposophic Pharmacists IAAP, 2005Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations. Anthroposophic medicine in brief: facts and figures [online]. Available from URL: http://www.iaap.org.uk/downloads/report_apc_2005.pdf [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Data on file, AMED manufacturers, Jul–Aug 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kienle GS, Kiene H, Albonico HU. Anthroposophic medicine: effectiveness, utility, costs, safety. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlag, 2006Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamre HJ, Becker-Witt C, Glockmann A, et al. Anthroposophic therapies in chronic disease: the Anthroposophic Medicine Outcomes Study (AMOS). Eur J Med Res 2004; 9(7): 351–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, et al. Health costs in anthroposophic therapy users: a two-year prospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6(1): 65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Smet PA. Herbal remedies. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(25): 2046–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnes J. Herbal medicines: a guide for healthcare professionals. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 2002Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamre HJ, Fischer M, Heger M, et al. Anthroposophic vs. conventional therapy of acute respiratory and ear infections: a prospective outcomes study. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2005; 117(7-8): 256–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2001 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel Verlag, 2001Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffmeister H, Schelp FP, Mensink GB, et al. The relationship between alcohol consumption, health indicators and mortality in the German population. Int J Epidemiol 1999; 28(6): 1066–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Junge B, Nagel M. Das Rauchverhalten in Deutschland. Gesundheitswesen 1999; 61(Sonderheft 2): S121–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breckenkamp J, Laaser U, Danell T. Freizeitinteressen und subjektive Gesundheit. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung, 2001Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verband Deutscher Rentenversicherungstrager. VDR Statistik Rentenbestand am 31. Dezember 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/ [Accessed 2006 Feb 21]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bergmann E, Ellert U. Sehhilfen, Horhilfen und Schwerbehinderung. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 2000; 43(6): 432–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arbeitsunfähigkeits-, Krankengeld- und Krankenhausfälle und - tage nach der GKV-Statistik KG2 1996 bis 2002. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und Soziale Sicherung, 2003Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Data on file, Institute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, 2006Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evans C, Crawford B. Patient self-reports in pharmacoeconomic studies: their use and impact on study validity. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15(3): 241–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gerbert B, Stone G, Stulbarg M, et al. Agreement among physician assessment methods: searching for the truth among fallible methods. Med Care 1988; 26(6): 519–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    West SL, Savitz DA, Koch G, et al. Recall accuracy for prescription medications: self-report compared with database information. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142(10): 1103–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van den Brink M, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Cost measurement in economic evaluations of health care: whom to ask? Med Care 2004; 42(8): 740–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Evans M, Zimmermann P. Internationale prospektive Outcome-Studie zur Verschreibung anthroposophischer Arzneimittel: Dokumentation des Therapieerfolges durch Patient und Arzt. Der Merkurstab 2005; 58(2): 88–97Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stock W. Homeopathic injectables: importance of the parenteral administration of homeopathic and anthroposophic remedies, risks and benefits. Dtsch Apoth Ztg 2002; 142: 40–4Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baars EW, Adriaansen-Tennekes R, Eikmans KJ. Safety of homeopathic injectables for subcutaneous administration: a documentation of the experience of prescribing practitioners. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11(4): 609–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harald J. Hamre
    • 1
  • Claudia M. Witt
    • 2
  • Anja Glockmann
    • 1
  • Wilfried Tröger
    • 3
  • Stefan N. Willich
    • 2
  • Helmut Kiene
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology e. V., Abteilung für klinische Forschung, Böcklerstr. 5FreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical CenterBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Clinical Research Dr TrögerFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations