4.3 Review

Surveillance of suspected adverse reactions to herbal products used as laxatives

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 231-238

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-011-1128-y

关键词

Herbal laxatives; Suspected adverse reactions; Senna; Surveillance

资金

  1. Enrico and Enrica Sovena Foundation, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To describe and evaluate spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions (ARs) associated with herbal laxatives received by the Italian Medicines Agency and the Italian National Institute of Health between April 2002 and January 2011. Methods Spontaneous reports of suspected ARs were individually analyzed by a multidisciplinary group of experts, and a causality assessment was performed. Results Twenty-six reactions were reported during the study period. Of these, eight were associated with herbal medicinal products and 18 were related to herbal food supplements. Almost 80% of the reports on ARs involved women. The ARs, classified by System Organ Class, were associated with gastrointestinal, skin and subcutaneous tissue, and hepatobiliary disorders. Fifty percent of the reactions were serious, with the patients requiring hospitalization; of these, one was life-threatening. Most of the herbal remedies associated with the reported ARs contained liquorice, dandelion, and/or plants containing anthraquinones. Possible causes of the ARs were long-term use, idiosyncratic reactions or hypersensitivity, and interaction with other treatments. All of these factors and the presence of a large number of components in the same product increased the unpredictability of the final effect. Conclusions The total number of 26 ARs recorded in 8 years is limited; however, the an under-reporting effect cannot be excluded. Moreover, taking into account the seriousness of the reported ARs, the low number of reports does not represent a guarantee of safety. To reduce the risk of an adverse outcome, herbal laxatives should be used only over the short term.

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

4.3
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