Use and Safety of Anthroposophic Medications in Chronic Disease
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.
KeywordsAdministration Frequency Febrile Convulsion Anthroposophic Medicine Concomitant Illness Suspected Adverse Reaction
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.
- 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
- 2.1924–2004 Sektion für Anthroposophische Medizin. Standortbestimmung/Arbeitsperspektiven. Dornach: Freie Hochschule für Geisteswissenschaft, 2004Google Scholar
- 3.Anthroposophic Pharmaceutical Codex APC. Dornach: The International Association of Anthroposophic Pharmacists IAAP, 2005Google Scholar
- 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.Data on file, AMED manufacturers, Jul–Aug 2006Google Scholar
- 6.Kienle GS, Kiene H, Albonico HU. Anthroposophic medicine: effectiveness, utility, costs, safety. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlag, 2006Google Scholar
- 10.Barnes J. Herbal medicines: a guide for healthcare professionals. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 2002Google Scholar
- 12.Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2001 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel Verlag, 2001Google Scholar
- 15.Breckenkamp J, Laaser U, Danell T. Freizeitinteressen und subjektive Gesundheit. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung, 2001Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Data on file, Institute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, 2006Google Scholar
- 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.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