Published online November 1, 2007
PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 Supplement November 2007, pp. S119-S120 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0846EE)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldsobel, A. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Goldsobel, A. B.

ALLERGY


Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Food-Allergic Patients

Alan B. Goldsobel, MD

San Jose, CA

ABSTRACT

Ko J, Lee JI, Muñoz-Furlong A, Li XM, Sicherer SH. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;97:365–369

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. To determine the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, the types of CAM modalities used, and opinions regarding CAM in food-allergic patients.

STUDY POPULATION. A total of 442 individuals were polled, 95% of whom were parents of food-allergic children. Two groups were evaluated by using an anonymous questionnaire: attendees at a Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network conference in 2002 and a convenience sample from the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology practice of Mount Sinai Medical Center (New York, NY). Three hundred eighty individuals filled out questionnaires, equal numbers from both groups.

METHODS. A 19-item questionnaire was constructed to collect data on types, frequency, and opinions of CAM use, severity of food allergy, and demographic information.

RESULTS. Diagnostic modalities considered unproven or disproven (including immunoglobulin G4 testing, kinesiology, electrodermal skin testing, and provocation testing) were used by 22% of the respondents. Chiropractors (10%) were the most common CAM providers, followed by homeopaths (5%), acupuncturists (4%), and herbologists (4%). Of food-allergic CAM users, 33% reported using chiropractic, 33% homeopathy, 17% Nambudripad's allergy-elimination technique, 12% acupressure, 9% massage, 6% acupuncture, and 3% reflexology. Sources of information about CAM included friends (39%), family (28%), the Internet (8%), and television (6%). Only 49% of the participants reported CAM use to their regular physicians. On a scale from 0 (not effective) to 5 (very effective), patients found that CAM therapies were not particularly effective (mean score: 2.08). If available, an herbal therapy of equal efficacy, safety, and cost was preferred as compared with a pharmaceutical drug (37% vs 12%; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS. Unproven or disproven diagnostic methods and CAM treatments were used by ~20% of the respondents (most of whom were parents of food-allergic patients). Most of those who used CAM noted poor efficacy, but if given a choice, many would prefer herbal therapies to pharmaceutical drugs.

REVIEWER COMMENTS. Education regarding effective food-allergy tests and additional research on CAM therapies are needed.