What is integrative medicine? Establishing the decision criteria for an operational definition of integrative medicine for general practice health services research in Australia.

Background: Operational definitions outline how a conceptual definition will be measured for consistent, reproducible data collection and analysis. This article reports the decision criteria that will be used for an operational definition of integrative medicine (IM) in a secondary analysis of an Australian national survey of general practitioner activity. Methods: A multidisciplinary team applied an iterative approach, informed by expert knowledge and literature reviews to establish decision criteria for categorizing the terms in the Australian clinical interface terminology of the International Classification of Primary Care, second edition (ICPC-2 PLUS) and the Coding Atlas for Pharmaceutical Substances, according to whether they reflected IM, conventional/mainstream medicine (MM), or both IM and MM (IM/MM). Results: The final decision criteria categorized all terms for examinations, investigations, advice/counselling, and drugs with synthetic ingredients, and terms for referrals to secondary care services and healthcare practitioners that are not a traditional or complementary medicine practitioner as MM. Terms that could apply to both styles of clinical practice (e.g., preventive health, lifestyle medicine, psychosocial and some drugs with natural ingredients) were categorised as IM/MM. The remaining terms, that mostly reflected the World Health Organization's theoretical definitions of traditional and complementary medicine, were categorized as IM. Conclusion: Differentiating between integrative and conventional/mainstream medicine in general practice is context specific and not always possible. The category IM/MM proposes integrative medicine as an extension, rather than an alternative. The rationale for the integrative medicine operational definition has relevance for researchers and health services in Australia, and internationally.

Interactions between natural products and cancer treatments: underlying mechanisms and clinical importance.

Natural products, also referred to as dietary supplements, complementary and alternative medicines, and health or food supplements are widely used by people living with cancer. These products are predominantly self-selected and taken concurrently with cancer treatments with the intention of improving quality of life, immune function and reducing cancer symptoms and treatment side effects. Concerns have been raised that concurrent use may lead to interactions resulting in adverse effects and unintended treatment outcomes. This review provides an overview of the mechanisms by which these interactions can occur and the current evidence about specific clinically important natural product-drug interactions. Clinical studies investigating pharmacokinetic interactions provide evidence that negative treatment outcomes may occur when Hypericum perforatum, Grapefruit, Schisandra sphenanthera, Curcuma longa or Hydrastis canadensis are taken concurrently with common cancer treatments. Conversely, pharmacodynamic interactions between Hangeshashinto (TJ-14) and some cancer treatments have been shown to reduce the side effects of diarrhoea and oral mucositis. In summary, research in this area is limited and requires further investigation.

The safety and tolerability of Annona muricata leaf extract: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Annona muricata, also known as graviola, soursop and guanabana, has been widely utilised for the treatment of a range of cancers. The mechanism of action and the efficacy of A. muricata and its constituents in the treatment of cancer have been comprehensively reviewed. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available literature that reports on factors related to the safety and tolerability of A. muricata leaf extract and its acetogenins. METHODS: In-vitro, preclinical animal studies and human studies of any design written in any language were included. Studies that evaluated A. muricata leaf extract and its constituents were searched through the databases Pubmed, Medline and Embase from inception to April 2019. The elaborated item 4 of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement and Animals in Research: Reporting In vivo Experiments guidelines were used to evaluate the quality of the studies. KEY FINDINGS: The results suggest that A. muricata and its constituents have hepatoprotective, neurotoxic, antinociceptive, anti-ulcerative and chemopreventive effects. The dose and duration used in animal studies demonstrating toxicity may not directly translate into the effects in humans. Studies included in this review were judged to be of medium to high quality. CONCLUSIONS: The overall outcome of the current review suggests that A. muricata has a favourable safety and tolerability profile. Future studies investigating its use in people diagnosed with a range of cancers are warranted.