Vol.4 Issue 1
Asthma

Increasingly, asthmatic patients are seeking relief from an array of CAM therapies that many conventional practitioners find bewildering. Fortunately, Andrea Markham and Jenny Wilkinson have given us a valuable resource to navigate this often unfamiliar territory. In their comprehensive review, “Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM) in the Management of Asthma: An Examination of the Evidence,” Markham & Wilkinson critically analyze the available evidence on the efficacy of CAM therapies to manage asthma, and thus help to demystify them (1).

The authors reviewed all randomized controlled trials of CAM therapies for asthma that were published between 1999 and 2001. The 15 studies that were found encompassed three categories of therapy: (a) mind-body (6 studies), (b) manual (6 studies), and (c) dietary (3 studies). As is typical for most CAM studies, many of the trials were limited by small sample sizes and comparisons with placebo conditions that may have therapeutic effects. Further limiting the studies was the fact that several of them measured pulmonary outcomes using nonstandard methodologies or definitions. As a result, it is not surprising that few of the studies found significant improvements in lung function. However, Markham & Wilkinson do not dismiss CAM therapies entirely, noting that the largely nonsignificant findings may reflect the studies' methodological limitations, rather than the therapies' lack of efficacy.

Reference

Markham AW, Wilkinson JM. Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM) in the Management of Asthma: An Examination of the Evidence. J Asthma 2004;41:131-139.