DISCUSSION
We surveyed a population of veterans at the CTHVAMC infusion center who were receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunomodulatory therapy, transfusion, and other therapies to evaluate their use of MMFC. We chose this group to sample because of how accessible this group was and the belief that there would be an adequate survey response. We hypothesized that by asking about a specific group of CAM therapies and not, as in many surveys, multiple CAM therapies, there would be an improved response rate. We expected that very few respondents would indicate MMFC use because in a similar study conducted in 2003 to 2004 at CTHVAMC, none of the 380 survey respondents (all with a hematology/oncology diagnosis) indicated magnet or magnetic field use (JR Salvatore, unpublished data). Although copper devices were available at that time, they were not included in that study. The current survey added copper devices and showed a greater use of MMFC, including copper devices. We identified veterans who used either 1 MMFC or multiple therapies. In both groups, copper devices were the most common. This may be due to the ubiquity and availability of copper devices. These devices are highly visible and promoted by professional athletes and other well-known personalities.
Our findings showed 2 unexpected results. First, there was greater than expected use of magnets and copper devices. Second, an even less expected result that there was considerable interest in participating in clinical research that used magnets or magnetic fields.
Respondents indicated a high interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic fields regardless of their history of MMFC use. We did not ask about a trial using copper devices because there is less scientific/medical research to justify studying those devices as opposed to data that support the use of magnets or magnetic fields. The data presented in this study suggest interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic field therapy. One clinical trial combined static magnets as an adjuvant to antineoplastic chemotherapy.14 We believe this is the first publication to specifically quantify both MMFC use in a veteran (or any) population, and to identify the desire to participate in clinical studies that would utilize magnets or magnetic fields, whether or not they currently use magnets or magnetic fields. Based on current knowledge, it is not clear whether use of MMFC by patients represents a risk or a benefit to the population studied, and seeking that information is part of the continuation of our work. We also believe that the data in this study will help practitioners to consider asking patients specifically whether they are using these therapies, and if so why and with what result. We are extending our work to a more generalized patient population.
The use of copper devices relates to beliefs (dating to the mid-1800s) that there was a relationship between copper deficiency and rheumatologic disorders. Copper devices are used as therapies because of the belief that small amounts of copper are absorbed through the skin, decreasing inflammation, particularly around joint spaces.15 Recent data suggest a mechanism for copper-induced cell death.16 Although this recent research suggests a mechanism for how copper might induce cell death, it is unclear how this would be applied to establishing a mechanism for the health effects of wearing copper devices. Since copper devices are thought to decrease inflammation, they may have a theoretical function by decreasing the number of inflammatory cells in an affected space.
CAM magnetics are typically of lower strength. The field generated by magnets is measured and reported in Tesla. Magnetic resonance imaging typically generates from 1.5 to 3 Tesla. A refrigerator magnet is about 1 milliTesla.17 In a study conducted at the CTHVAMC, the strength of the magnets used was measured at distances from the magnet. For example, at 2 cm from the magnet, the measured strength was 18 milliTesla.14 Many MMFC devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) devices for healing of nonunion fractures (approved in 1979); cervical and lumbar fusion therapies (approved in 2004); and therapy for anxiety and depression (approved in 2006).18