Remedies Containing Asteraceae Extracts
Background: The use of complementary therapies by patients has increased over the past 20 years, both in terms of self-medication and physician prescriptions. Among herbal medicines, those containing extracts of Asteraceae (Compositae), such as Echinacea spp., Arnica montana, Matricaria recutita and Calendula officinalis, are especially popular in the primary-care setting. However, there remains a gap between the growing acceptance of these remedies and the lack of data on their safety.
Objective: The aim of this study was to analyse prescribing patterns and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for Asteraceae-containing remedies in Germany.
Methods: Primary-care physicians, all of whom were members of the German National Association of Anthroposophic Physicians were invited to participate in this prospective, multicentre, observational study. During the study period (September 2004 to September 2006), all prescriptions and suspected ADRs for both conventional and complementary therapies were documented using a web-based system. The study centre monitored all ADR reports and conducted a causality assessment according to Uppsala Monitoring Centre guidelines. Relative risks (RRs) and proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated.
Results: Thirty-eight physicians, 55% of whom were general practitioners and 45% were specialists, fulfilled the technical requirements and were included in the investigation. Because documenting all ADRs (i.e. serious and non-serious) was time consuming, only a subgroup consisting of seven physicians agreed to report nonserious in addition to serious ADRs. During the study period, a total of 50 115 patients were evaluated and 344 ADRs for conventional and complementary remedies were reported. Altogether, 18 830 patients (58.0% female, 60.3% children) received 42 378 Asteraceae-containing remedies. The most frequently prescribed Asteraceae was Matricaria recutita (23%), followed by Calendula officinalis (20%) and Arnica montana (20%). No serious ADRs for Asteraceae-containing remedies were reported. In the analysis of the subgroup of seven physicians who also documented nonserious ADRs, 11 nonserious ADRs for Asteraceae-containing remedies occurred in 6961 patients, resulting in an RR of 0.13 (95% CI 0.07, 0.23). The majority of reported ADRs for Asteraceae-containing remedies were classified as uncommon. A subgroup analysis comparing phytotherapeutic and homoeopathic preparations did not reveal any relevant differences. The PRR for Asteraceae-containing remedies with respect to all other prescriptions was 1.7 (95% CI 1.0, 2.0) for the system organ class ‘skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders’ (six ADRs) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.3, 3.6) for ‘gastrointestinal disorders’ (three ADRs). Neither result was significant according to the PRR criteria developed by Evans et al.
Conclusion: This is the first study to provide a systematic overview of prescribing patterns and ADRs for Asteraceae-containing remedies in the German primary-care sector. Asteraceae-containing remedies were used frequently in this context, especially among children. Our results indicate that treatment with Asteraceae-containing remedies is not associated with a high risk of ADRs.
KeywordsHerbal Remedy Complementary Therapy Proportional Reporting Ratio Taraxacum Officinale Anthroposophic Medicine
This study was supported by grants from the Software AG Foundation, Wala Heilmittel GmbH and Weleda AG. The sponsors had no influence on the design or implementation of the study; the collection, management or analysis of data; or the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. E. Jeschke, C. Lüke, M. Tabali, M. Kröz and H. Matthes have received additional, restricted grants from Wala Heilmittel GmbH and Weleda AG within the past 5 years. C. Witt has a research grant from Wala Heilmittel GmbH. We would like to thank Petra A. Thürmann for reading the manuscript and for her helpful comments. We would also like to thank Matthew D. Gaskins for editing the English version of this manuscript. Finally, we would like to express our special gratitude to all physicians participating in the EvaMed Pharmacovigilance Network.
- 5.Schwester T. Korbblütler. Homoeopathia viva 2005; 3(1): 1–5Google Scholar
- 6.Weckenmann M. Entwurf einer synthetischen Betrachtung der Compositen. Beiträge zu einer Erweiterung der Heilkunst nach geisteswissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen 1975; 28(1): 1–4Google Scholar
- 7.Mamedov NA. Medical plants of compositae family in Karabakh. Acta Hort 1996; 79–82Google Scholar
- 9.Linde K, Barrett B, Wolkart K, et al. Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (1): CD000530Google Scholar
- 18.Levenson D. Physicians should increase knowledge of herbal remedies. Rep Med Guidel Outcomes Res 2001; 12: 7–9Google Scholar
- 22.Steiner R, Wegmann I. Extending practical medicine: fundamental principles based on the science of the spirit. Bristol: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996Google Scholar
- 23.Jeschke E, Schad F, Pissarek J, et al. QuaDoSta-ein frei konfigurierbares System zur Unterstützung multi-zentrischer Datenerhebungen in medizinischer Versorgung und Forschung. GMS Med Inform Biom Epidemiol 2007; 3 (2): Doc10Google Scholar
- 24.The Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Safety monitoring of medical products: guidelines for setting up and running a pharmacovigilance centre. Uppsala: The Uppsala Monitoring Centre, 2000Google Scholar
- 25.ICH. Medical dictionary for regulatory activities (Med-DRA) terminology [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/cache/compo/276-254-1.html [Accessed 2009 Jan 6]
- 26.The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Guidelines for preparing core clinical safety information on drugs. Report of the CIOMS Working Group III and V. 2nd ed. Geneva: CIOMS, 1999Google Scholar
- 27.SPSS Inc. SPSS 15.0 for Windows. Chicago (IL): SPSS Inc., 1989–2007Google Scholar
- 30.WHO. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 10th revision [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [Accessed 2009 Jan 6]
- 45.Final report on the safety assessment of Arnica montana extract and Arnica montana. Int J Toxicol 2001; 20 Suppl. 2: 1–11Google Scholar