4.4 Review

Concurrent administration of anticancer chemotherapy drug and herbal medicine on the perspective of pharmacokinetics

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD AND DRUG ANALYSIS
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 S88-S95

出版社

FOOD & DRUG ADMINSTRATION
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2018.01.003

关键词

Traditional Chinese medicine; Chemotherapy drug; Pharmacokinetics; Herb-drug interaction

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan [MOST 106-2113-M-010-002]
  2. FEMH-NYMU [106DN22]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With an increasing number of cancer patients seeking an improved quality of life, complementary and alternative therapies are becoming more common ways to achieve such improvements. The potential risks of concurrent administration are serious and must be addressed. However, comprehensive evidence for the risks and benefits of combining anticancer drugs with traditional herbs is rare. Pharmacokinetic investigations are an efficient way to understand the influence of concomitant remedies. Therefore, this study aimed to collect the results of pharmacokinetic studies relating to the concurrent use of cancer chemotherapy and complementary and alternative therapies. According to the National Health Insurance (NHI) database in Taiwan and several publications, the three most commonly prescribed formulations for cancer patients are Xiang-Sha-Liu-Jun-ZiTang, Jia-Wei-Xiao-Yao-San and Bu-Zhong-Yi-Qi-Tang. The three most commonly prescribed single herbs for cancer patients are Hedyotis diffusa, Scutellaria barbata, and Astragalus membranaceus. Few studies have discussed herb-drug interactions involving these herbs from a pharmacokinetics perspective. Here, we reviewed Jia-Wei-Xiao-YaoSan, Long-Dan-Xie-Gan-Tang, Curcuma longa and milk thistle to provide information based on pharmacokinetic evidence for healthcare professionals to use in educating patients about the risks of the concomitant use of various remedies. Copyright (C) 2018, Food and Drug Administration, Taiwan. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据