Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 75, Issue 9, pp 1237–1248 | Cite as

Herb-drug interactions: a novel algorithm-assisted information system for pharmacokinetic drug interactions with herbal supplements in cancer treatment

  • Janine Ziemann
  • Annette Lendeckel
  • Susann Müller
  • Markus Horneber
  • Christoph A. RitterEmail author
Pharmacokinetics and Disposition

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a system to estimate the risk of herb-drug interactions that includes the available evidence from clinical and laboratory studies, transparently delineates the algorithm for the risk estimation, could be used in practice settings and allows for adaptation and update.

Methods

We systematically searched Drugbank, Transformer, Drug Information Handbook, European and German Pharmacopoeia and MEDLINE for studies on herb-drug interactions of five common medicinal plants (coneflower, ginseng, milk thistle, mistletoe and St. John’s wort). A diverse set of data were independently extracted by two researchers and subsequently analysed by a newly developed algorithm. Results are displayed in the form of interaction risk categories. The development of the algorithm was guided by an expert panel consensus process.

Results

From 882 publications retrieved by the search, 154 studies were eligible and provided 529 data sets on herbal interactions. The developed algorithm prioritises results from clinical trials over case reports over in vitro investigations and considers type of study, consistency of study results and study outcome for clinical trials as well as identification, permeability, bioavailability, and interaction potency of an identified herbal perpetrator for in vitro investigations. Risk categories were assigned to and dynamically visualised in a colour-coded matrix format.

Conclusions

The novel algorithm allows to transparently generate and dynamically display herb-drug interaction risks based on the available evidence from clinical and laboratory pharmacologic studies. It provides health professionals with readily available and easy updatable information about the risk of pharmacokinetic interactions between herbs and oncologic drugs.

Keywords

Herb-drug interactions Complementary medicine Herbal supplements Anticancer drugs Assessment algorithm 

Abbreviations

CAM

Complementary and alternative medicine

CYP

Cytochrome P450

UGT

Uridine-diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase

Pgp

Permeability-glycoprotein

MDR

Multidrug resistance

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the collaborative research project ‘Competence Network of Complementary Medicine in Oncology’ (Kompetenznetz Komplementärmedizin in der Onkologie - KOKON), which was funded by the Stiftung Deutsche Krebshilfe, Bonn, Germany (Project No. 110150). The authors also thank the following experts for helpful discussions while developing the algorithm and matrix: Joachim Boos, Thomas Efferth, Robert Herrmann, Wolfgang Kämmerer, Ulrich Klotz, Ulrike Lindequist, Klaus Mross, Friedemann Nauck, Friederich Overkamp and Oliver von Richter. In addition, we acknowledge the participation of the following pharmacy students in the independent data extraction and grading process: Kathleen Gewiese, Sophie Müller, Franziska Splettstößer and Anne Stolzenburg. Peter Kößler and Jan Less are acknowledged for their contributions in developing the database and programming the algorithm. Finally, Laura Russell edited the manuscript for English language.

Author contributions

AL and JZ searched the literature, extracted and assessed study data, developed the algorithm and participated in writing the manuscript. SM assessed study data and participated in writing the manuscript. MH participated in designing the research, developing the algorithm and writing the manuscript. CAR designed research, participated in developing the algorithm and wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

228_2019_2700_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (63 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 63 kb)
228_2019_2700_MOESM2_ESM.docx (25 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 25 kb)
228_2019_2700_MOESM3_ESM.docx (22 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Horneber M, Bueschel G, Dennert G, Less D, Ritter E, Zwahlen M (2012) How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Integr Cancer Ther 11(3):187–203Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bright-Gbebry M, Makambi KH, Rohan JP et al (2011) Use of multivitamins, folic acid and herbal supplements among breast cancer survivors: the black women’s health study. BMC Complement Altern Med 11:30Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damery S, Gratus C, Grieve R, Warmington S, Jones J, Routledge P, Greenfield S, Dowswell G, Sherriff J, Wilson S (2011) The use of herbal medicines by people with cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Br J Cancer 104(6):927–933Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naing A, Stephen SK, Frenkel M, Chandhasin C, Hong DS, Lei X, Falchook G, Wheler JJ, Fu S, Kurzrock R (2011) Prevalence of complementary medicine use in a phase 1 clinical trials program: the MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience. Cancer 117(22):5142–5150Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D et al (2005) Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol 16(4):655–663Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giveon SM, Liberman N, Klang S, Kahan E (2004) Are people who use “natural drugs” aware of their potentially harmful side effects and reporting to family physician? Patient Educ Couns 53(1):5–11Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCune JS, Hatfield AJ, Blackburn AAR et al (2004) Potential of chemotherapy-herb interactions in adult cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 12(6):454–462Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loquai C, Dechent D, Garzarolli M, Kaatz M, Kaehler KC, Kurschat P, Meiss F, Stein A, Nashan D, Micke O, Muecke R, Muenstedt K, Stoll C, Schmidtmann I, Huebner J (2016) Risk of interactions between complementary and alternative medicine and medication for comorbidities in patients with melanoma. Med Oncol 33(5):52Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yap KY-L, See CS, Kuo EY, Chui WK, Chan A (2012) Utilizing mobile networks for the detection of clinically relevant interactions between chemotherapy regimens and complementary and alternative medicines. J Altern Complement Med 18(2):165–174Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roe AL, Paine MF, Gurley BJ, Brouwer KR, Jordan S, Griffiths JC (2016) Assessing natural product–drug interactions: an end-to-end safety framework. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 76:1–6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teo YL, Ho HK, Chan A (2015) Metabolism-related pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: current understanding, challenges and recommendations. Br J Clin Pharmacol 79(2):241–253Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leeuwen v, Roelof WF, van Gelder T, Mathijssen RHJ et al (2014) Drug-drug interactions with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors: a clinical perspective. Lancet Oncol 15(8):26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    DiCenzo R, Shelton M, Jordan K, Koval C, Forrest A, Reichman R, Morse G (2003) Coadministration of milk thistle and indinavir in healthy subjects. Pharmacotherapy 23(7):866–870Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuhr U, Beckmann-Knopp S, Jetter A, Lück H, Mengs U (2007) The effect of silymarin on oral nifedipine pharmacokinetics. Planta Med 73(14):1429–1435Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gurley BJ, Gardner SF, Hubbard MA et al (2004) In vivo assessment of botanical supplementation on human cytochrome P450 phenotypes: Citrus aurantium, Echinacea purpurea, milk thistle, and saw palmetto. Clin Pharmacol Ther 76(5):428–440Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gurley BJ, Barone GW, Williams DK, Carrier J, Breen P, Yates CR, Song PF, Hubbard MA, Tong Y, Cheboyina S (2006) Effect of milk thistle (Silybum marianum) and black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa) supplementation on digoxin pharmacokinetics in humans. Drug Metab Dispos 34(1):69–74Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kawaguchi-Suzuki M, Frye RF, Zhu H-J, Brinda BJ, Chavin KD, Bernstein HJ, Markowitz JS (2014) The effects of milk thistle (Silybum marianum) on human cytochrome P450 activity. Drug Metab Dispos 42(10):1611–1616Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mills E, Wilson K, Clarke M, Foster B, Walker S, Rachlis B, DeGroot N, Montori VM, Gold W, Phillips E, Myers S, Gallicano K (2005) Milk thistle and indinavir: a randomized controlled pharmacokinetics study and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 61(1):1–7Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piscitelli SC, Formentini E, Burstein AH, Alfaro R, Jagannatha S, Falloon J (2002) Effect of milk thistle on the pharmacokinetics of indinavir in healthy volunteers. Pharmacotherapy 22(5):551–556Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jancova P, Anzenbacherova E, Papouskova B, Lemr K, Luzna P, Veinlichova A, Anzenbacher P, Simanek V (2007) Silybin is metabolized by cytochrome P450 2C8 in vitro. Drug Metab Dispos 35(11):2035–2039Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sridar C, Goosen TC, Kent UM, Williams JA, Hollenberg PF (2004) Silybin inactivates cytochromes P450 3A4 and 2C9 and inhibits major hepatic glucuronosyltransferases. Drug Metab Dispos 32(6):587–594Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zuber R, Modriansky M, Dvorak Z et al (2002) Effect of silybin and its congeners on human liver microsomal cytochrome P450 activities. Phytother Res 16(7):632–638Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kremers P (2002) In vitro tests for predicting drug-drug interactions: the need for validated procedures. Pharmacol Toxicol 91(5):209–217Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenblatt DJ (2014) In vitro prediction of clinical drug interactions with CYP3A substrates: we are not there yet. Clin Pharmacol Ther 95(2):133–135Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bjornsson TD, Callaghan JT, Einolf HJ, Fischer V, Gan L, Grimm S, Kao J, King SP, Miwa G, Ni L, Kumar G, McLeod J, Obach SR, Roberts S, Roe A, Shah A, Snikeris F, Sullivan JT, Tweedie D, Vega JM, Walsh J, Wrighton SA, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Drug Metabolism/Clinical Pharmacology Technical Working Groups (2003) The conduct of in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies: a PhRMA perspective. J Clin Pharmacol 43(5):443–469Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang S-M, Temple R, Throckmorton DC, Lesko LJ (2007) Drug interaction studies: study design, data analysis, and implications for dosing and labeling. Clin Pharmacol Ther 81(2):298–304Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    FDA guidance for industry on drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, implications for dosing, and labeling recommendations. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM292362.pdf
  28. 28.
    Bachmann KA, Lewis JD (2005) Predicting inhibitory drug-drug interactions and evaluating drug interaction reports using inhibition constants. Ann Pharmacother 39(6):1064–1072Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vieira MLT, Kirby B, Ragueneau-Majlessi I, Galetin A, Chien JYL, Einolf HJ, Fahmi OA, Fischer V, Fretland A, Grime K, Hall SD, Higgs R, Plowchalk D, Riley R, Seibert E, Skordos K, Snoeys J, Venkatakrishnan K, Waterhouse T, Obach RS, Berglund EG, Zhang L, Zhao P, Reynolds KS, Huang SM (2014) Evaluation of various static in vitro-in vivo extrapolation models for risk assessment of the CYP3A inhibition potential of an investigational drug. Clin Pharmacol Ther 95(2):189–198Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Medicines Agency (2012) Guideline on the investigation of drug interactions. www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-investigation-drug-interactions_en.pdf. Accessed 04 Mar 2019Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sprouse AA, van Breemen RB (2016) Pharmacokinetic interactions between drugs and botanical dietary supplements. Drug Metab Dispos 44(2):162–171Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Venkataramanan R, Komoroski B, Strom S (2006) In vitro and in vivo assessment of herb drug interactions. Life Sci 78(18):2105–2115Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Markowitz JS, Zhu H-J (2012) Limitations of in vitro assessments of the drug interaction potential of botanical supplements. Planta Med 78(13):1421–1427Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang X, Zhu H-J, Munoz J, Gurley BJ, Markowitz JS (2015) An ex vivo approach to botanical-drug interactions: a proof of concept study. J Ethnopharmacol 163:149–156Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gufford BT, Barr JT, Gonzalez-Perez V et al (2015) Quantitative prediction and clinical evaluation of an unexplored herb-drug interaction mechanism in healthy volunteers. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 4(12):701–710Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Roon EN, Flikweert S, Le Comte M et al (2005) Clinical relevance of drug-drug interactions: a structured assessment procedure. Drug Saf 28(12):1131–1139Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    de Smet PAGM (2007) Clinical risk management of herb-drug interactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 63(3):258–267Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goey AKL, Beijnen JH, Schellens JHM (2014) Herb-drug interactions in oncology. Clin Pharmacol Ther 95(4):354–355Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fugh-Berman A, Ernst E (2001) Herb-drug interactions: review and assessment of report reliability. Br J Clin Pharmacol 52(5):587–595Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vardell E (2015) Natural medicines: a complementary and alternative medicines tool combining natural standard and the natural medicines comprehensive database. Med Ref Serv Q 34(4):461–470Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yap KY-L, Kuo EY, Lee JJJ, Chui WK, Chan A (2010) An onco-informatics database for anticancer drug interactions with complementary and alternative medicines used in cancer treatment and supportive care: an overview of the OncoRx project. Support Care Cancer 18(7):883–891Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brazier NC, Levine MAH (2003) Drug-herb interaction among commonly used conventional medicines: a compendium for health care professionals. Am J Ther 10(3):163–169Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cvijovic K, Boon H, Barnes J, Brulotte J, Jaeger W, Murty M, Vu D, Reid S, Vohra S (2009) A tool for rapid identification of potential herbal medicine–drug interactions. Can Pharm J 142(5):224–227Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    (2001) Hagers Enzyklopädie der Arzneistoffe und Drogen. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Preissner S, Kroll K, Dunkel M et al (2010) SuperCYP: a comprehensive database on cytochrome P450 enzymes including a tool for analysis of CYP-drug interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 38(Database issue):43Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC et al (2006) DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res 34(Database issue):72Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lacy C (2011) Drug information handbook: a comprehensive resource for all clinicians and healthcare professionals, 20th ed. (2011–2012) ; North-American ed. Lexi-Comp’s drug reference handbooks. Lexi-Comp; American Pharmacists Association, Hudson, Ohio, [Washington, D.C.]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of PharmacyErnst-Moritz-Arndt-University of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Oncology/Hematology and PneumologyParacelsus Medical University, Klinikum NuernbergNuernbergGermany

Personalised recommendations