Devil's claw or green-lipped mussels? We're open-minded, says leading arthritis charity
Reproduced from Issue 108 of Arthritis Today
The Arthritis Research Campaign is launching a major new initiative to fund research into complementary therapies after more than 60 years of concentrating on laboratory-based science.
The fifth largest medical research charity in the UK has until recently only funded work into conventional, drug-based, scientific research.
But the huge rise in the number of arthritis patients who seek relief from chronic pain through non-traditional therapies and who are increasingly dissatisfied with conventional treatments has prompted arc to reconsider its position.
Much complementary therapy (CT) – including dietary supplements, homeopathy, herbalism, hypnotherapy, and acupuncture – remains scientifically unproven. Despite this, one in three people in the UK have tried it – twice that number of people with chronic conditions. An astonishing sixty six per cent of rheumatoid arthritis patients use some form of complementary therapies.
But although some forms of CT undoubtedly help patients, other, often expensive therapies and products are simply a waste of money which rip off vulnerable members of the public, says the charity. For this reasons there is a real need for scientific evidence to prove or disprove the effectiveness of CTs.
Launching the new initiative at the start of Arthritis Research Week, June 5–10, chief executive of arc, Fergus Logan, said: "New medicines and treatments have traditionally been developed under a convention which says in a nutshell: 'Don't use it if you can't prove it.' But in complementary medicine, it is often believed that the proof is provided by use – and that no further investigation is needed. Scientists find this concept difficult – hence the scepticism some feel.
"We are hoping to bridge the gap by devising ways of researching CTs which will provide the rigour science requires without scaring off the complementary therapists. The first step is to put the two in touch with each other, so that traditional scientists can explain to prospective complementary researchers the sort of questions they need to be answering."
Eminent Leeds rheumatologist Professor Paul Emery has welcomed arc's change of strategy. "I'm all for testing complementary therapies," he said. "We have to find out if they work or not – we simply can't ignore them, and we have to be open-minded."
His colleague Dr Philip Helliwell, whose own rheumatology department in Bradford offers patients acupuncture and manipulation, and refers them for chiropractic, osteopathy, and the Alexander technique, agrees.
"You could say that it's up to complementary therapists to prove the efficacy of what they practise, but on the other hand a lot of our patients use them and it morally behoves us to invest in them," he said. "Some therapies will doubtlessly be debunked, but unless we can come up with a terribly effective cure for their arthritis, people will keep on with these therapies."
Earlier this year for the first time in its 65-year history, arc funded a grant for a two-year clinical trial into the effects of acupuncture on patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.
Musculoskeletal physician at the University of Newcastle, Dr Susanne Bower, who is leading the trial, said: "Acupuncture requires credibility, and we want to produce an orthodox scientific study which will answer questions about efficacy and safety. If the study is positive towards acupuncture, then the medical establishment will take notice, and it will become accepted – and more widely available for the benefit of patients.
