Dataset Information

Adverse effects of plant food supplements and botanical preparations: a systematic review with critical evaluation of causality.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The objective of this review was to collect available data on the following: (i) adverse effects observed in humans from the intake of plant food supplements or botanical preparations; (ii) the misidentification of poisonous plants; and (iii) interactions between plant food supplements/botanicals and conventional drugs or nutrients.

Methods

PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase were searched from database inception to June 2014, using the terms 'adverse effect/s', 'poisoning/s', 'plant food supplement/s', 'misidentification/s' and 'interaction/s' in combination with the relevant plant name. All papers were critically evaluated according to the World Health Organization Guidelines for causality assessment.

Results

Data were obtained for 66 plants that are common ingredients of plant food supplements; of the 492 papers selected, 402 (81.7%) dealt with adverse effects directly associated with the botanical and 89 (18.1%) concerned interactions with conventional drugs. Only one case was associated with misidentification. Adverse effects were reported for 39 of the 66 botanical substances searched. Of the total references, 86.6% were associated with 14 plants, including Glycine max/soybean (19.3%), Glycyrrhiza glabra/liquorice (12.2%), Camellia sinensis/green tea ( 8.7%) and Ginkgo biloba/gingko (8.5%).

Conclusions

Considering the length of time examined and the number of plants included in the review, it is remarkable that: (i) the adverse effects due to botanical ingredients were relatively infrequent, if assessed for causality; and (ii) the number of severe clinical reactions was very limited, but some fatal cases have been described. Data presented in this review were assessed for quality in order to make the results maximally useful for clinicians in identifying or excluding deleterious effects of botanicals.

SUBMITTER: Di Lorenzo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4386943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis meta-epidemiological study aimed to systematically review case reports regarding sports nutrition supplements and adverse events (AEs), specifically addressing the issue of causality assessments.MethodsThrough a systematic literature search we identified all published case reports of AEs associated with sports nutrition supplements between 1 January 2008 and 1 March 2019. Data regarding AEs, suspected supplements, relevant causality assessment factors and the reporting of clinical reasoning and/or systematic causality assessment methods were extracted.ResultsIn all, 72 publications were included, reporting 134 supplements and 37 different AEs in 97 patients (85% males; median age: 30 years [range: 14-60]). Information regarding previous health and regular prescription drugs was not presented in 30% (29/97) and 46% (45/97) of cases, respectively. In 23% (22/97) of the cases, no alternative cause was mentioned. Clinical reasoning was identified in 63% (61/97), and in 13% (8/61) of these, a systematic causality assessment method was applied. In cases with clinical reasoning, a theoretic rationale (92% vs 78%, P = 0.05), a description of previous cases (90% vs 72%, P = 0.021) and body fluid analysis (18% vs 3%, P = 0.027) were reported to a greater extent. Among cases with clinical reasoning, the application of a systematic causality assessment method captured additional important aspects: use of medication (100% vs 55%, P = 0.015), alcohol use (88% vs 43%, P = 0.020) and illicit drug use (88% vs 40%, P = 0.011).ConclusionsIn published case reports where sports nutrition supplements were suspected to have caused AEs, essential factors for causality assessment were left out in a non-negligible proportion. Clinical reasoning was identified in most cases whereas a systematic causality assessment method was applied in a minority. Factors of importance for causality assessment were reported to a greater extent in cases including clinical reasoning, and the application of a systematic causality assessment method captured additional aspects of importance.

Project description:Microalgal food supplements are becoming increasingly popular due to their promising biological effects and high nutritional value, evidenced in in vitro, in vivo, and human studies. Some products of this kind have, however, raised controversies concerning their safety. At the same time, not much is known about the frequency of adverse events following the use of microalgal supplements, potential factors that may influence them, and general characteristics and behaviours of the consumer group. The present study aimed to fill this gap and surveyed a group of Polish consumers of microalgal products (n = 150) using an online questionnaire. As found, microalgal supplements (Spirulina, Chlorella, and Aphanizomenon) were popular in groups representing lacto-ovo-vegetarianism and veganism and were consumed predominantly for nutritional, immune-boosting, and detoxifying purposes. Their use was rarely discussed with specialists; the Internet constituted the most important source of information regarding these supplements. The most frequently self-reported health-beneficial effects of supplementation included the following: increased immunity, higher vitality, improved hair and skin quality, and better general well-being. Diarrhoea, nausea, abdominal pain, and skin rash were among the most often reported adverse events. Pre-existing medical conditions, namely renal failure and hypothyroidism, but not Hashimoto's thyroiditis, were associated with increased occurrence of side effects. Those individuals who had consulted specialists as to the use of supplements reported adverse events significantly less often. A strikingly high frequency of side effects and very low consumer satisfaction were reported by a group of consumers supplementing Aphanizomenon-based products. In summary, the present study highlights that microalgal consumers may benefit from additional warnings of potential side effects and from consulting a qualified health specialist prior to use.