Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 32, Issue 8, pp 691–706 | Cite as

Remedies Containing Asteraceae Extracts

A Prospective Observational Study of Prescribing Patterns and Adverse Drug Reactions in German Primary Care
  • Elke Jeschke
  • Thomas Ostermann
  • Claudia Lüke
  • Manuela Tabali
  • Matthias Kröz
  • Angelina Bockelbrink
  • Claudia M. Witt
  • Stefan N. Willich
  • Harald Matthes
Original Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Herbal Remedy Complementary Therapy Proportional Reporting Ratio Taraxacum Officinale Anthroposophic Medicine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ross S, Simpson CR, McLay JS. Homoeopathic and herbal prescribing in general practice in Scotland. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 647–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hughes R, Ward D, Tobin AM, et al. The use of alternative medicine in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol 2007; 24: 118–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mullins RJ, Heddle R. Adverse reactions associated with echinacea: the Australian experience. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2002; 88: 42–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harms H. Compositae drugs in Central Low German prescriptions from East Frisia (16th and early 17th century) [in German]. Med Monatsschr 1969; 23: 312–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwester T. Korbblütler. Homoeopathia viva 2005; 3(1): 1–5Google Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Mamedov NA. Medical plants of compositae family in Karabakh. Acta Hort 1996; 79–82Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrett B, Vohmann M, Calabrese C. Echinacea for upper respiratory infection. J Fam Pract 1999; 48: 628–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    Ludtke R, Hacke D. On the effectiveness of the homeopathic remedy Arnica Montana [in German]. Wien Med Wochenschr 2005; 155: 482–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeffrey SL, Belcher HJ. Use of Arnica to relieve pain after carpal-tunnel release surgery. Altern Ther Health Med 2002; 8: 66–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Widrig R, Suter A, Saller R, et al. Choosing between NSAID and arnica for topical treatment of hand osteoarthritis in a randomised, double-blind study. Rheumatol Int 2007; 27: 585–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basch E, Bent S, Foppa I, et al. Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.): an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2006; 6: 135–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gordon LA. Compositae dermatitis. Australas J Dermatol 1999; 40: 123–18; quiz 129–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paulsen E. Contact sensitization from Compositae-containing herbal remedies and cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47: 189–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jovanovic M, Poljacki M, Duran V, et al. Contact allergy to Compositae plants in patients with atopic dermatitis. Med Pregl 2004; 57: 209–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fuiano N, Incorvaia C, Riario-Sforza GG, et al. Anaphylaxis to honey in pollinosis to mugwort: a case report. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 38: 364–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levenson D. Physicians should increase knowledge of herbal remedies. Rep Med Guidel Outcomes Res 2001; 12: 7–9Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suchard JR, Suchard MA, Steinfeldt JL. Physician knowledge of herbal toxicities and adverse herb-drug interactions. Eur J Emerg Med 2004; 11: 193–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clement YN, Williams AF, Khan K, et al. A gap between acceptance and knowledge of herbal remedies by physicians: the need for educational intervention. BMC Complement Altern Med 2005 Nov 18; 5: 20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matthes H, Tabali M, Jeschke E. Ein Pharmakovigilanzsystem für Arzneimittel der besonderen Therapierichtungen. EHK 2008; 57: 34–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steiner R, Wegmann I. Extending practical medicine: fundamental principles based on the science of the spirit. Bristol: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996Google Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 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. 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. 27.
    SPSS Inc. SPSS 15.0 for Windows. Chicago (IL): SPSS Inc., 1989–2007Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evans SJ, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 483–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veehof LJ, Stewart RE, Meyboom-de Jong B, et al. Adverse drug reactions and polypharmacy in the elderly in general practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 55: 533–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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]
  31. 31.
    Jeschke E, Luke C, Ostermann T, et al. Prescribing practices in the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections in anthroposophic medicine [in German]. Forsch Komplementarmed 2007; 14: 207–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schneider B, Hanisch J, Weiser M. Complementary medicine prescription patterns in Germany. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38: 502–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, et al. Use and safety of anthroposophic medications in chronic disease: a 2-year prospective analysis. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 1173–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keddie Z, Jones R. Information communications techno logy in general practice: cross-sectional survey in London. Inform Prim Care 2005; 13: 113–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Robertson J, Henry D, Dobbins T, et al. Prescribing patterns in general practice: a comparison of two data sources. Aust Fam Physician 1999; 28: 1186–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Begaud B, Martin K, Haramburu F, et al. Rates of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in France [letter]. JAMA 2002; 288: 1588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hasford J, Goettler M, Munter KH, et al. Physicians’ knowledge and attitudes regarding the spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 945–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhai Z, Liu Y, Wu L, et al. Enhancement of innate and adaptive immune functions by multiple Echinacea species. J Med Food 2007; 10: 423–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Knuesel O, Weber M, Suter A. Arnica montana gel in osteoarthritis of the knee: an open, multicenter clinical trial. Adv Ther 2002; 19: 209–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Agosti R, Duke RK, Chrubasik JE, et al. Effectiveness of Petasites hybridus preparations in the prophylaxis of migraine: a systematic review. Phytomedicine 2006; 13: 743–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Miller AL. The etiologies, pathophysiology, and alternative/ complementary treatment of asthma. Altern Med Rev 2001; 6: 20–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ziolo G, Samochowiec L. Study on clinical properties and mechanisms of action of Petasites in bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive bronchitis. Pharm Acta Helv 1998; 72: 378–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Noonan K, Arensman RM, Hoover JD. Herbal medication use in the pediatric surgical patient. J Pediatr Surg 2004; 39: 500–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alves AR, da Silva MJ. Use of phytotherapy in children up to 5 years of age in a central and peripheral area of the city of Sao Paulo [in Portuguese]. Rev Esc Enferm USP 2003; 37: 85–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Final report on the safety assessment of Arnica montana extract and Arnica montana. Int J Toxicol 2001; 20 Suppl. 2: 1–11Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reider N, Sepp N, Fritsch P, et al. Anaphylaxis to camomile: clinical features and allergen cross-reactivity. Clin Exp Allergy 2000; 30: 1436–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elke Jeschke
    • 1
  • Thomas Ostermann
    • 2
  • Claudia Lüke
    • 1
  • Manuela Tabali
    • 1
  • Matthias Kröz
    • 1
  • Angelina Bockelbrink
    • 3
  • Claudia M. Witt
    • 3
  • Stefan N. Willich
    • 3
  • Harald Matthes
    • 1
  1. 1.Havelhoehe Research InstituteBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Medical Theory and Complementary MedicineUniversity of Witten/HerdeckeHerdeckeGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health EconomicsCharité University Medical CentreBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations