Adverse event reporting patterns of concomitant botanical dietary supplements with CYP3A4 interactive & CYP3A4 non-interactive anticancer drugs in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

Exploring the impact of co-exposure timing on drug-drug interactions in signal detection through spontaneous reporting system databases: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are defined as the pharmacological effects produced by the concomitant administration of two or more drugs. To minimize false positive signals and ensure their validity when analyzing Spontaneous Reporting System (SRS) databases, it has been suggested to incorporate key pharmacological principles, such as temporal plausibility.

AREAS COVERED

The scoping review of the literature was completed using MEDLINE from inception to March 2023. Included studies had to provide detailed methods for identifying DDIs in SRS databases. Any methodological approach and adverse event were accepted. Descriptive analyzes were excluded as we focused on automatic signal detection methods. The result is an overview of all the available methods for DDI signal detection in SRS databases, with a specific focus on the evaluation of the co-exposure time of the interacting drugs. It is worth noting that only a limited number of studies (n = 3) have attempted to address the issue of overlapping drug administration times.

EXPERT OPINION

Current guidelines for signal validation focus on factors like the number of reports and temporal association, but they lack guidance on addressing overlapping drug administration times, highlighting a need for further research and method development.

Standardization of açaí extracts for in-vitro assays based on anthocyanin quantitation

Euterpe oleracea Mart., commonly known as açaí, is a fruit that grows on a palm tree native to the Amazon region. Quantitation of bioactive constituents is a crucial preliminary step before utilizing extracts for biological assays so they may be normalized and administered according to a specific constituent concentration. Açaí has four main anthocyanin analytes: cyanidin 3-glucoside, cyanidin 3-sambubioside, cyanidin 3-rutinoside, and peonidin 3-rutinoside. This is the first comparison of açaí anthocyanin profiles between fresh fruits, processed powders, and botanical dietary supplement capsules. The materials examined shared a similar anthocyanin profile, with cyanidin 3-rutinoside being the most abundant (0.380 ± 0.006 - 15.1 ± 0.01 mg/g), followed by cyanidin 3-glucoside (0.0988 ± 0.0031 - 8.95 ± 0.01 mg/g). Among the botanical dietary supplement capsules, the two formulations varied greatly in anthocyanin concentration despite both being aqueous extracts (0.650 ± 0.011 - 0.924 ± 0.010 mg/g versus 1.23 ± 0.01 - 1.27 ± 0.02 mg/g). Previous LC-MS methods range from 35-120 min per injection, while we report a 10 min quantitative method for analysis of anthocyanins in various açaí materials that is fast, reproducible, and accurate. The method produced is useful to assure the quality, efficacy and safety of food and dietary supplement materials containing açaí.

The prevalence and predictors of herb-drug interactions among Iranian cancer patients during chemotherapy courses

BACKGROUND

The concurrent usage of herbal medicines with conventional therapies is an important concern in cancer treatment which can lead to unexpected consequences like herb-drug interactions. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potential herb-drug interactions and to predict factors associated with herb-drug interactions for cancer patients.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted among a convenience sample of 315 cancer patients referring to the oncology clinics of Kerman city in 2018. Data were collected via comprehensive face-to-face interviews and medical chart reviews. A drug interaction checker was used to determine herb-drug interactions. The information of patients was compared based on herb-drug interactions using bivariable logistic regression models, and predictors were determined by the multivariable logistic regression model. All analyses were performed by Stata software version 16.

RESULTS

Of 262 patients (83.2% of the patients) who used herbal medicines, 209 patients [79.8% (95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 75.2 - 85.1)] had potential herb-drug interactions. Chamomile was the most popular herbal medicine (n = 163, 78.0%), and minor and moderate herb-drug interactions were caused by green tea (n = 34, 16.3%) and peppermint (n = 78, 37.5%). The number of chemotherapeutic agents (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.43-2.58; P-value < 0.0001) and the experienced of pain during chemotherapy courses (OR = 2.22, 95%CI:1.00-4.94; P-value = 0.04) were some of the predictors of herb-drug interactions among cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Herbal medicine use during chemotherapy was found prevalent among cancer patients; of them, the experience of potential herb-drug interactions was highly frequent. Oncologists and clinical pharmacologists are recommended to take into account challenges associated with herb-drug interactions in their routine practices, particularly during chemotherapy among these patients.

Real-world data on herb-drug interactions in oncology: A scoping review of pharmacoepidemiological studies

BACKGROUND

The concurrent use of conventional drugs and herbal medicines is becoming popular among patients with cancer. However, the potential risk of herb-drug interactions (HDI) remains under-addressed in the literature. Previous reviews have mainly focused on the prevalence of interactions, with less attention paid to the methods used by pharmacoepidemiological studies on evaluating HDI. This scoping review aims to summarize the existing pharmacoepidemiological studies that evaluate HDI using real-world data and to identify gaps to be addressed in future research.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in nine English- and Chinese-language databases from their inception to May 2021. Gray literature and manual searches were conducted to identify additional studies. The recommended components of the pharmacoepidemiological studies and key findings related to HDI were summarized. The proportion (%) of patients with cancer at risk of HDI was estimated by combining data from eligible studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included in the review. More than half of these studies were cross-sectional studies (n = 18, 64.3%), followed by retrospective cohort studies (n = 5, 17.9%) and prospective cohort studies (n = 2, 7.1%). The three cancer drugs most commonly studied for their interaction potential with herbs were tamoxifen (n = 11, 39.3%), cyclophosphamide (n = 6, 21.4%), and paclitaxel (n = 6, 21.4%). Most cross-sectional studies identified potential HDI using tertiary databases and primary literature searches. Conversely, prospective and retrospective studies mainly investigated actual clinical outcomes, such as adverse events and secondary cancer occurrences. Most interaction outcomes identified using real-world data did not lead to negative clinical consequences. Collectively, 45.4% of herbal medicine users of the included studies were found to be at risk of HDI. We infer from this review that the common limitations of these studies were limited sample size, lack of data on herbal medicine use and details of HDI, and lack of evidence of HDI. Based on the study limitations, several recommendations to enrich the data sources and optimize the study designs were proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high demand for pharmacoepidemiological research on HDI, considering the increasing popularity of herbal medicine among patients with cancer. It is anticipated that emerging real-world data in this field can guide the development of safe and effective approaches to integrative oncology.

A taxonomy of risk-associated alternative health practices: A Delphi study

Defining alternative health care and the recording of associated adverse events and harm remains problematic. This Canadian study aimed to establish and classify risk-associated alternative health practices in a Delphi study undertaken with an interdisciplinary panel of 17 health experts in 2020. It provides a new functional definition of alternative health care and an initial taxonomy of risk-associated alternative health care practices. A number of risk-associated practices were identified and categorized into general practices that conflict with biomedical care or largely untested therapies, alternative beliefs systems, physical manipulative alternative therapies, and herbal and nutritional supplements. Some risk significant harms including major physical injuries or even death. The lack of systematic methods for recording adverse events in alternative health care makes establishing the frequency of such events challenging. However, it is important that people engaging with alternative health care understand they are not necessarily risk-free endeavours, and what those risks are.