Herbalists’ perception of risks involving commonly sold medicinal plants in Italy

From Bush Medicine to Modern Phytopharmaceutical: A Bibliographic Review of Devil's Claw (Harpagophytum spp.)

Devil's claw (Harpagophytum spp., Pedaliaceae) is one of the best-documented phytomedicines. Its mode of action is largely elucidated, and its efficacy and excellent safety profile have been demonstrated in a long list of clinical investigations. The author conducted a bibliographic review which not only included peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals but also a vast amount of grey literature, such as theses and reports initiated by governmental as well as non-governmental organizations, thus allowing for a more holistic presentation of the available evidence. Close to 700 sources published over the course of two centuries were identified, confirmed, and cataloged. The purpose of the review is three-fold: to trace the historical milestones in devil's claw becoming a modern herbal medicine, to point out gaps in the seemingly all-encompassing body of research, and to provide the reader with a reliable and comprehensive bibliography. The review covers aspects of ethnobotany, taxonomy, history of product development and commercialization, chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, as well as clinical efficacy and safety. It is concluded that three areas stand out in need of further investigation. The taxonomical assessment of the genus is outdated and lacking. A revision is needed to account for intra- and inter-specific, geographical, and chemo-taxonomical variation, including variation in composition. Further research is needed to conclusively elucidate the active compound(s). Confounded by early substitution, intermixture, and blending, it has yet to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that both (or all) Harpagophytum spp. are equally (and interchangeably) safe and efficacious in clinical practice.

Potential role of propolis in wound healing: Biological properties and therapeutic activities

Propolis is a resinous mixture that honey bees collect from the tree buds, sap flows, or other botanical sources. The chemical composition of propolis varies and depends on the geographical area, time of collection, seasonality, illumination, altitude, and food availability during propolis exploitation. The goal of this review is to discuss important concepts including mechanisms of action and therapeutic activities of propolis. The PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the literature published from January the 1st 2000 to October the 1st 2017. Sixteen animals and three clinical studies were included. A quantitative and qualitative review was performed on the clinical trials and the animal studies were comprehensively overviewed. In this study, the clinical trials have been combined and the results were provided as meta-analysis. Propolis is a non-toxic natural product; however some cases of allergy and contact dermatitis to this compound have been described mainly among beekeepers. An important factor in impaired wound healing is biofilm formation; propolis as an anti-microbial agent can reduce biofilm generation and result in accelerated healing processes. Most of the in vivo studies on various wound models suggested the beneficial roles of propolis on experimental wound healing and this has also been approved in the clinical trial studies. However, there is a lack of information concerning, dose, side effects and clinical effectiveness of propolis on wounds. As the effectiveness of propolis between different products is variable, more characterizations should be done and future investigations comparing different propolis based products and characterization of their specific roles on different models of wounds are highly appreciated.

The Effect of Propolis in Healing Injured Nasal Mucosa: An Experimental Study

Introduction

 Mechanical trauma to the nasal mucosa increases the risk of synechia formation, especially after chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal surgeries.

Objective

 This study was carried to assess the effect of propolis administration in healing injured nasal mucosa in rats.

Methods

 We randomly divided eighteen rats into three equal experimental groups: (1) non-treated group; (2) gum tragacanth (suspending agent for propolis) treated group; and (3) propolis treated group. The non-treated group received no treatment for 15 days. The second group received gum tragacanth administration (5 ml/kg, orally) once daily for 15 days. The third group received propolis suspension orally at a dose of 100 mg/kg once daily for 15 days. At the beginning of this study, we induced unilateral mechanical nasal trauma on the right nasal mucosa of all rats in the three groups using a brushing technique. A pathologist stained tissue samples using hematoxylin and examined eosin by using a light microscope.

Results

 The severity of inflammation was milder with the absence of ulcerations in the propolis treated group compared with the non-treated and gum tragacanth groups. Goblet cell and ciliated cell loss was substantially lower in patients treated with propolis compared with groups without treatment and those treated with gum tragacanth.

Conclusion

 Propolis decreased inflammation and enhanced healing of wounds of the nasal mucosa in rats.

Topical application of the bee hive protectant propolis is well tolerated and improves human diabetic foot ulcer healing in a prospective feasibility study

AIMS

Propolis is a naturally occurring anti-inflammatory bee derived protectant resin. We have previously reported that topically applied propolis reduces inflammation and improves cutaneous ulcer healing in diabetic rodents. The aim of this study was to determine if propolis shows efficacy in a pilot study of human diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) healing and if it is well tolerated.

MATERIALS

Serial consenting subjects (n=24) with DFU ≥4 weeks' duration had topical propolis applied at each clinic review for 6 weeks. Post-debridement wound fluid was analyzed for viable bacterial count and pro-inflammatory MMP-9 activity. Ulcer healing data were compared with a matched control cohort of n=84 with comparable DFU treated recently at the same center.

RESULTS

Ulcer area was reduced by a mean 41% in the propolis group compared with 16% in the control group at week 1 (P<0.001), and by 63 vs. 44% at week 3, respectively (P<0.05). In addition, 10 vs. 2% (P<0.001), then 19 vs. 12% (P<0.05) of propolis treated vs. control ulcers had fully healed by weeks 3 and 7, respectively. Post-debridement wound fluid active MMP-9 was significantly reduced, by 18.1 vs. 2.8% week 3 from baseline in propolis treated ulcers vs. controls (P<0.001), as were bacterial counts (P<0.001). No adverse effects from propolis were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical propolis is a well-tolerated therapy for wound healing and this pilot in human DFU indicates for the first time that it may enhance wound closure in this setting when applied weekly. A multi-site randomized controlled of topical propolis now appears to be warranted in diabetic foot ulcers.