Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives The use of herbal medicine is widespread among oncology patients, with potentially negative interactions with anticancer drugs. This study identified herbal products being used among a cohort of oncology patients, assessing the risk for an herb-drug interaction.
Methods Herbal medicine use was examined among 42 oncology patients, identifying potential herb-drug interactions using four online sites. The risk for an interaction was scored using the Working Group on Pharmacotherapy and Drug Information of the Royal Dutch Association for the Advancement of Pharmacy (KNMP).
Results Most patients (62%) reported herbal medicine use, with 70 products identified; 8 herbs and 13 herbal formulas with unidentified components; and 24 anticancer drugs. Herbal medicine use was more prevalent among female patients (p=0.038), with only nine potential herb-drug interactions identified on at least one site. A maximal KNMP Score of 1 (ie, incomplete published case report) was found with only one interaction.
Conclusions The risk for interactions between herbal products and anticancer drugs is difficult to predict, with online search engines providing limited and inconsistent information. Clinical implications of herb-antitumor drug interactions need to be better understood, enabling patients and their oncology healthcare providers to make informed decisions regarding their care.
- Complementary therapy
- Quality of life
- Symptoms and symptom management
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
NS and SS are joint first authors.
Collaborators Not applicable.
Contributors All authors participated in the design of the study, analysis of the data, and preparing the manuscript and authorising its submission for publication. NS and SS interviewed patients, identified the use of herbal products and performed the online search for potential herb-drug interactions. NS is the guarantor who accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study. NS had access to the data and controlled the decision to publish.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.