P063 Prevalence in the Use of Complementary/Alternative Medicine in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease from Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre.

Abstract

Frequently, existing therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not achieve complete remission of the disease and are commonly associated with adverse effects. Therefore, patients regularly turn to complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). International CAM use in IBD patients ranges from 21% to 60%. There are no reported statistics of CAM use in the Mexican population who suffer IBD. This study´s objective was to determine the prevalence and characterize the use of CAM in our IBD population. Observational, cross-sectional, retrospective study in patients diagnosed with IBD belonging to our Institution's IBD center. The results were analyzed with measures of relative frequency, central tendency, and dispersion. A total of 52 patients with IBD (78% ulcerative colitis and 22% Crohn's disease) were included, 38.5% were exposed to CAM. A total of 27% used it as an aid in their IBD treatment. The remaining 11.5% used it for other reasons. Patients exposed to CAM for IBD averaged 51 ± 19 years, 64% were female and 71% had at least an undergraduate degree. The most used CAMs were acupuncture (42.8%), herbal (35.7%) and homeopathy (35.7%). Half of the patients used concomitantly two or more modalities, and 91.6% of the patients knew their diagnosis at the time that CAM was being used. The median exposure time to CAM was 4.5 ± 40.7 months. The main reasons for the use of CAM in IBD patients was as a complementary therapy in 58.3%, as the perception of lack of improvement was present in 33.3% of patients. Twenty-five percent of patients used CAM after a healthcare professional recommended it. CAM was used in 83.2% of patients with conventional treatment (Mesalamine: 74.6%, Mesalamine + Azathioprine: 8.3%) and only 16.5% were on biological therapy. A total of 58.3% CAM users perceived improvement in their symptoms. Currently 25% still use some modality of CAM. No statistically significant differences were found in sociodemographic variables and clinical outcomes when comparing the IBD group exposed to CAM vs the unexposed group. Exposure to CAM for IBD treatment had a prevalence of 27%. The main CAM modalities for IBD patients were acupuncture, herbal, and homeopathy. No relationship was demonstrated between the use of CAM in IBD patients and their clinical outcomes.