PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Helmut Kiene

Publications and source records attributed to Helmut Kiene.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Anthroposophic therapy for chronic depression: a four-year prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are common, cause considerable disability, and do not always respond to standard therapy (psychotherapy, antidepressants). Anthroposophic treatment for depression differs from ordinary treatment in the use of artistic and physical therapies and special medication. We studied clinical outcomes of anthroposophic therapy for depression. METHODS: 97 outpatients from 42 medical practices in Germany participated in a prospective cohort study. Patients were aged 20-69 years and were referred to anthroposophic therapies (art, eurythmy movement exercises, or rhythmical massage) or started physician-provided anthroposophic therapy (counselling, medication) for depression: depressed mood, at least two of six further depressive symptoms, minimum duration six months, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, German version (CES-D, range 0-60 points) of at least 24 points. Outcomes were CES-D (primary outcome) and SF-36 after 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 48 months. Data were collected from July 1998 to March 2005. RESULTS: Median number of art/eurythmy/massage sessions was 14 (interquartile range 12-22), median therapy duration was 137 (91-212) days. All outcomes improved significantly between baseline and all subsequent follow-ups. Improvements from baseline to 12 months were: CES-D from mean (standard deviation) 34.77 (8.21) to 19.55 (13.12) (p < 0.001), SF-36 Mental Component Summary from 26.11 (7.98) to 39.15 (12.08) (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary from 43.78 (9.46) to 48.79 (9.00) (p < 0.001). All these improvements were maintained until last follow-up. At 12-month follow-up and later, 52%-56% of evaluable patients (35%-42% of all patients) were improved by at least 50% of baseline CES-D scores. CES-D improved similarly in patients not using antidepressants or psychotherapy during the first six study months (55% of patients). CONCLUSION: In outpatients with chronic depression, anthroposophic therapies were followed by long-term clinical improvement. Although the pre-post design of the present study does not allow for conclusions about comparative effectiveness, study findings suggest that the anthroposophic approach, with its recourse to non-verbal and artistic exercising therapies can be useful for patients motivated for such therapies.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

[Anthroposophic medicine: health technology assessment report - short version].

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Health Technology Assessment Report was to analyse the current situation, efficacy, effectiveness, safety, utilization, and costs of Anthroposophic Medicine (AM) with special emphasis on everyday practice. DESIGN: Systematic review. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Search of 20 databases, reference lists and expert consultations. Criteriabased analysis was performed to assess methodological quality and external validity of the studies. RESULTS: AM is a complementary medical system that extends conventional medicine and provides specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. It covers all areas of medicine. 178 clinical trials on efficacy and effectiveness were identified: 17 RCTs, 21 prospective and 43 retrospective NRCTs, 50 prospective and 47 retrospective cohort studies/case-series without control groups. They investigated a wide range of AM-treatments in a variety of diseases, 90 x mistletoe in cancer. 170 trials had a positive result for AM. Methodological quality differed substantially; some studies showed major limitations, others were reasonably well conducted. Trials of better quality still showed a positive result. External validity was usually high. Side effects or other risks are rare. AM-patients are well educated, often female, aged 30-50 years, or children. The few economic investigations found less or equal costs in AM because of reduced hospital admissions and less prescriptions of medications. CONCLUSION: Trials of varying design and quality in a variety of diseases predominantly describe good clinical outcome for AM, little side effects, high satisfaction of patients and presumably slightly less costs. More research and more methodological expertise and infrastructure are desirable.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Health costs in anthroposophic therapy users: a two-year prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anthroposophic therapies (counselling, special medication, art, eurythmy movement, and rhythmical massage) aim to stimulate long-term self-healing processes, which theoretically could lead to a reduction of healthcare use. In a prospective two-year cohort study, anthroposophic therapies were followed by a reduction of chronic disease symptoms and improvement of quality of life. The purpose of this analysis was to describe health costs in users of anthroposophic therapies. METHODS: 717 consecutive outpatients from 134 medical practices in Germany, starting anthroposophic therapies for chronic diseases, participated in a prospective cohort study. We analysed direct health costs (anthroposophic therapies, physician and dentist consultations, psychotherapy, medication, physiotherapy, ergotherapy, hospital treatment, rehabilitation) and indirect costs (sick leave compensation) in the pre-study year and the first two study years. Costs were calculated from resource utilisation, documented by patient self-reporting. Data were collected from January 1999 to April 2003. RESULTS: Total health costs in the first study year (bootstrap mean 3,297 Euro; 95% confidence interval 95%-CI 3,157 Euro to 3,923 Euro) did not differ significantly from the pre-study year (3,186 Euro; 95%-CI 3,037 Euro to 3,711 Euro), whereas in the second year, costs (2,771 Euro; 95%-CI 2,647 Euro to 3,256 Euro) were significantly reduced by 416 Euro (95%-CI 264 Euro to 960 Euro) compared to the pre-study year. In each period hospitalisation and sick-leave together amounted to more than half of the total health costs. Anthroposophic therapies and medication amounted to 3%, 15%, and 8% of total health costs in the pre-study year, first year, and second study year, respectively. The cost reduction in the second year was largely accounted for by a decrease of inpatient hospitalisation, leading to a hospital cost reduction of 519 Euro (95%-CI 377 Euro to 904 Euro) compared to the pre-study year. CONCLUSION: In patients starting anthroposophic therapies for chronic disease, total health costs did not increase in the first year, and were reduced in the second year. This reduction was largely explained by a decrease of inpatient hospitalisation. Within the limits of a pre-post design, study findings suggest that anthroposophic therapies are not associated with a relevant increase in total health costs.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Use and safety of anthroposophic medications in chronic disease: a 2-year prospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Anthroposophic medications (AMED) are prescribed by physicians in 56 countries worldwide and are used for the treatment of a variety of conditions. However, safety data on long-term use of AMED from large prospective studies are sparse. The objective of this analysis was to determine the frequency of patient-reported and physician-assessed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to AMED in outpatients using AMED for chronic diseases over a 2-year period. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study involving 131 medical practices in Germany. In total, 662 consecutive outpatients aged 1-75 years were enrolled in the study. The patients were using AMED for mental (primarily depression and fatigue), musculoskeletal, respiratory, neurological and other chronic diseases. Main outcome measures were use of AMED and ADRs to AMED. RESULTS: Throughout the 2-year follow-up, patients used 949 different AMED for a total of 11 487 patient-months. The origin of AMED was mineral (8.1%, 77 of 949 AMED), botanical (41.8%), zoological (7.8%), chemically defined (10.5%) and mixed (31.7%). Most frequently used AMED ingredients were Viscum album (11.5%, 76 of 662 patients), Bryophyllum (9.4%), Arnica (7.9%) and Silicea (7.7%). Non-AMED products were used by 94.2% of patients for a total of 11 202 patient-months; 45.2% of this use was accounted for by medication for the CNS, the cardiovascular system and the alimentary tract and metabolism. A total of 1861 adverse events (AEs) were documented. The most frequent AEs were non-specific symptoms, signs and findings (International Classification of Diseases [10th Edition] R00-R99: 27.6%, 513 of 1861 AEs), musculoskeletal (M00-M99: 16.9%), respiratory (J00-J99: 8.2%) and digestive diseases (K00-K93: 6.6%). No serious AEs attributable to any medication occurred. Out of the 1861 reported AEs, 284 (15.3%) AEs were suspected by the physician or the patient to be an adverse reaction to non-medication therapy (n = 42 AEs), non-AMED (n = 187) or AMED (n = 55 AEs in 29 patients). Twenty of these 29 patients had confirmed ADRs to 21 AMED. These ADRs were local reactions to topical application (n = 6 patients), systemic hypersensitivity (n = 1) and aggravation of pre-existing symptoms (n = 13). In ten patients, AMED was stopped due to ADRs; two patients had ADRs of severe intensity. Median number of days with ADRs was 7 (range 1-39 days). All ADRs subsided, none were serious. The frequency of confirmed ADRs to AMED was 2.2% (21 of 949) of all different AMED used, 3.0% (20 of 662) of AMED users and one ADR per 382 patient-months of AMED use. CONCLUSION: In this 2-year prospective study, AMED therapy was generally well tolerated.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Anthroposophic vs. conventional therapy of acute respiratory and ear infections: a prospective outcomes study.

CONTEXT: Acute respiratory and ear symptoms are frequently treated with antibiotics. Anthroposophic treatment of these symptoms relies primarily on anthroposophic medications. OBJECTIVE: To compare anthroposophic treatment to conventional treatment of acute respiratory and ear symptoms regarding clinical outcome, medication use and safety, and patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Prospective, non-randomised comparison of outcomes in patients self-selected to anthroposophic or conventional therapy under real-world conditions. SETTING: 29 primary care practices in Austria, Germany, Netherlands, UK, and USA. PARTICIPANTS AND THERAPY: 1016 consecutive outpatients aged > or = 1 month, consulting an anthroposophic (n = 715 A-patients) or conventional physician (n = 301 C-patients) with a chief complaint of acute (< or = 7 days) sore throat, ear pain, sinus pain, runny nose or cough. Patients were treated according to the physician's discretion. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Patients' self-report of treatment outcome (complete recovery/major improvement/slight to moderate improvement/no change/deterioration) at Day 14. RESULTS: Most common chief complaints were cough (39.9% of A-patients vs. 33.9% of C-patients, p = 0.0772), sore throat (26.3% vs. 23.3%, p=0.3436), and ear pain (20.0% vs. 18.9%, p=0.7302). Baseline chief complaint severity was severe or very severe in 60.5% of A-patients and 53.3% of C-patients (p=0.0444), mean severity (0-4) of complaint-related symptoms was 1.3 +/- 0.7 vs. 1.2 +/- 0.6 (p=0.5197). During the 28-day follow-up antibiotics were prescribed to 5.5% of A-patients and 33.6% of C-patients (p<0.0001), anthroposophic medicines were prescribed to all A-patients and no C-patient. OUTCOMES: Improvement within 24 hours occurred in 30.9% (221/715) of A-patients and 16.6% (50/301) of C-patients (p<0.0001), improvement within 3 days in 73.1% and 57.1% (p<0.0001). At Day 7 complete recovery or major improvement was reported by 77.1% of A-patients and 66.1% of C-patients (p=0.0004), at Day 14 by 89.7% and 84.4% (p=0.0198). Complete recovery rates at Day 7 were 30.5% and 23.3% (p<0.0001); at Day 14 they were 64.2% and 49.5% (p<0.0001). 69.9% of A-patients and 60.5% of C-patients were very satisfied with their physician (p=0.0043); 95.7% and 83.4% would choose the same therapy again for their chief complaint (p<0.0001). After adjustment for country, gender, age, chief complaint, duration of complaint, previous episode of complaint within last year, and baseline symptom severity, odds ratios favoured the A-group for all these outcomes. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 2.7% of A-patients and 6.0% of C-patients (p=0.0157). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional treatment, anthroposophic treatment of primary care patients with acute respiratory and ear symptoms had more favourable outcomes, lower antibiotic prescription rates, less adverse drug reactions, and higher patient satisfaction.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2005

[What is cognition-based medicine?].

Cognition-based medicine (CBM) is a newly-developed methodological system of scientific medicine. Its primary element is the criteria-based assessment of therapeutic causality at the level of the individual patient. Principles and criteria of single-case causality assessment have been analyzed and explicated. CBM enables a methodological professionalization of clinical judgment, as well as the explication of physician experience and expertise. CBM study designs expand the current range of clinical research, extending from criteria-based causality assessment in single cases to new forms of cohort evaluations.

Clinical Medicine↗