4.3 Article

Prevalence of Polyherbacy in Ambulatory Visits to Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinics in Taiwan

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120809639

Keywords

traditional Chinese medicine; polypharmacy; polyherbacy; drug interaction; complementary and alternative medicine; National Health Insurance

Funding

  1. National Science Council [NSC 100-2410-H-010-001-MY3]
  2. Taipei Veterans General Hospital [V104E10-001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with a polyherbal prescription are more likely to receive duplicate medications and thus suffer from adverse drug reactions. We conducted a population-based retrospective study to examine the items of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) per prescription in the ambulatory care of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in Taiwan. We retrieved complete TCM ambulatory visit datasets for 2010 from the National Health Insurance database in Taiwan. A total of 59,790 patients who received 313,482 CHM prescriptions were analyzed. Drug prescriptions containing more than five drugs were classified as polyherbal prescriptions; 41.6% of patients were given a polyherbal prescription. There were on average 5.2 +/- 2.5 CHMs: 2.3 +/- 1.1 compound herbal formula items, and 3.0 +/- 2.5 single Chinese herb items in a single prescription. Approximately 4.6% of patients were prescribed 10 CHMs or more. Men had a lower odds ratio (OR) among polyherbal prescriptions (OR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.99), and middle-aged patients (35-49 years) had the highest frequency of polyherbal prescription (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.13-1.26). Patients with neoplasm, skin and subcutaneous tissue disease, or genitourinary system disease were more likely to have a polyherbal prescription; OR = 2.20 (1.81-2.67), 1.65 (1.50-1.80), and 1.52 (1.40-1.64), respectively. Polyherbal prescription is widespread in TCM in Taiwan. Potential herb interactions and iatrogenic risks associated with polyherbal prescriptions should be monitored.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available