Search

Background: There has been a global increase in the use of herbal medicinal products (HMPs). About a quarter of UK adults use HMPs, bought over the counter by self-prescription and often not disclosed to healthcare professionals. Potential herb-drug interaction is a clinical concern, with older people at greater risk because of co-morbidities and slower clearance of pharmacologically active compounds. While there is a good understanding of general herbal medicine use by older people, less is known about the extent and implications of concurrent use with prescription medicines. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the prevalence, patterns, safety issues and other factors associated with concurrent prescription and herbal medicines use among older adults., Methods/design: Systematic electronic searches of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Web of Science and Cochrane from inception till present for studies reporting the concurrent use of prescription medicines with HMPs in older adults (≥65 years). Lateral searching via related citation (PubMed) and checking reference lists of identified studies will be performed. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and appraise methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence data and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Qualitative and quantitative studies from all settings will be included. Non-empirical papers, in vitro experiments and animal studies will be excluded. Primary outcomes are prevalence and patterns of concurrent use, number and types of prescription and HMPs and adverse reactions reported. Secondary outcomes are disclosure of HMP use to healthcare professionals and cost of HMPs. A narrative synthesis of included studies will be performed to summarise the evidence., Discussion: This review will synthesise and critically appraise current knowledge on the concurrent use of drugs and HMPs by older adults and thus provide a better understanding of the issue. It will also identify any gaps in knowledge. By establishing safety issues associated with concurrent use, it will also inform strategies that can help practitioners to identify and manage older people at potential risk of herb-drug interactions., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014009091.

This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) aims to evaluate critically the evidence regarding the adverse effects of herbal medicines (HMs). Five electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant SRs, with 50 SRs of 50 different HMs meeting our inclusion criteria. Most had only minor weaknesses in methods. Serious adverse effects were noted only for four HMs: Herbae pulvis standardisatus, Larrea tridentate, Piper methysticum and Cassia senna. The most severe adverse effects were liver or kidney damage, colon perforation, carcinoma, coma and death. Moderately severe adverse effects were noted for 15 HMs: Pelargonium sidoides, Perna canaliculus, Aloe vera, Mentha piperita, Medicago sativa, Cimicifuga racemosa, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Serenoa repens, Taraxacum officinale, Camellia sinensis, Commifora mukul, Hoodia gordonii, Viscum album, Trifolium pratense and Stevia rebaudiana. Minor adverse effects were noted for 31 HMs: Thymus vulgaris, Lavandula angustifolia Miller, Boswellia serrata, Calendula officinalis, Harpagophytum procumbens, Panax ginseng, Vitex agnus-castus, Crataegus spp., Cinnamomum spp., Petasites hybridus, Agave americana, Hypericum perforatum, Echinacea spp., Silybum marianum, Capsicum spp., Genus phyllanthus, Ginkgo biloba, Valeriana officinalis, Hippocastanaceae, Melissa officinalis, Trigonella foenum-graecum, Lagerstroemia speciosa, Cnicus benedictus, Salvia hispanica, Vaccinium myrtillus, Mentha spicata, Rosmarinus officinalis, Crocus sativus, Gymnema sylvestre, Morinda citrifolia and Curcuma longa. Most of the HMs evaluated in SRs were associated with only moderately severe or minor adverse effects.

Background:   Zingiber officinale (Z. officinale), commonly known as ginger, has been widely used traditionally for a variety of medicinal purposes, one of which is for the treatment of pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence from all human participant clinical trials that have assessed the efficacy of ginger for the treatment of any type of pain., Methods:   Following a protocol, multiple databases were sought using comprehensive search strategies for Z. officinale and pain together with a trial filter for randomized or controlled clinical trials. Trials testing the efficacy of Z. officinale, used as a sole oral treatment against a comparison condition in human adults suffering from any pain condition, were included., Results:   Seven published articles, reporting a total of eight trials (481 participants), were included in the review. Six trials (two for osteoarthritis, one for dysmenorrhea, and three for experimentally induced acute muscle pain) found that the use of Z. officinale reduced subjective pain reports. The methodological quality of the included articles was variable. When assessed using the Jadad scale, which allows a score of between 0 and 5 to be given, included articles obtained Jadad ratings ranging from 2 to 5., Conclusion:   Due to a paucity of well-conducted trials, evidence of the efficacy of Z. officinale to treat pain remains insufficient. However, the available data provide tentative support for the anti-inflammatory role of Z. officinale constituents, which may reduce the subjective experience of pain in some conditions such as osteoarthritis. Further rigorous trials therefore seem to be warranted., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)