Thirteen-Week Study of PM014 Subchronic Oral Toxicity in Rats

Natural products in the treatment of pulmonary emphysema: Therapeutic effects and mechanisms of action

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a class of lung diseases including chronic bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema. Long-time smoking is considered the main reason for developing emphysema. Emphysema can be defined as damage to the walls of the air sacs (alveoli) of the lung. It has been demonstrated that natural compounds with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects can effectively improve or protect the lung against this disease. This paper is dedicated to systematically review the effective natural compounds in the treatment of pulmonary emphysema.

PURPOSE

This is the first systematic and comprehensive review on the role of plant-derived secondary metabolites in managing and/or treating pulmonary emphysema STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic and comprehensive review was done based on Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the "emphysema", "plant", "herb", and "phytochemical" keywords. Non-English, review, and repetitive articles were excluded from the study. Search results were included in the Prisma diagram.

RESULTS

From a total of 1285 results, finally, 22 articles were included in the present study. The results show that some herbs such as Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi and Monascus adlay and some phytochemicals such as gallic acid and quercetin and blackboard tree indole alkaloids affect more factors in improving the lung emphysema. Also, some natural compounds such as marijuana smoke and humic acid also play an aggravating role in this disease. It also seems that some of the medicinal plants such as PM014 herbal formula, pomegranate juice and açaí berry sometimes have side effects that are inconsistent with their therapeutic effects.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that natural compounds can effectively improve pulmonary emphysema due to their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-apoptotic properties. However, additional studies are suggested to prove efficacy and side effects.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of the Herbal Formula PM014 in a Cisplatin- and Paclitaxel-Treated Tumor-Bearing Mouse Model

PM014 (HL301) is a standardized herbal mixture derived from a traditional Korean medicine, Chung-Sang-Bo-Ha-Tang. Previously, we reported that PM014 treatment significantly suppressed pulmonary fibrosis, one of the frequent adverse effects of anticancer therapy in lung cancer. Before the clinical application of PM014 in anticancer therapy, the safety and efficacy of PM014 in combination with conventional anticancer drugs should be addressed to determine whether PM014 can be used in lung cancer. Lewis lung cancer–bearing mice were injected with 10 mg/kg of cisplatin or paclitaxel on day 5. Starting on day 7, the mice were administered 200 mg/kg PM014 every 2 days. On day 15, all mice were assessed by biochemical and histological analyses. PM014 did not block the antitumor activity of cisplatin and paclitaxel. Coadministration of PM014 and antitumor agents did not elevate the aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase ratio or the blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio. Histopathological analysis also showed that PM014 did not induce hepatic or renal injury. Moreover, PM014 had no apparent inhibitory effects on drug metabolizing enzymes, indicating that PM014 did not alter the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic drugs. Overall, these data show the safety and compatibility of combination therapy of PM014 and chemotherapies for the treatment of lung cancer.

HL301 in the treatment of acute bronchitis: a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, multicenter study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

There is insufficient quality data to recommend the use of herbs for the treatment of acute bronchitis. Small number of randomized trials of plant extracts for this purpose were determined to be low quality and there are concerns for the safety. HL301 is a combined product of seven medicinal plants. In the present study, we tried to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HL301 for the treatment of acute bronchitis with a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial design.

METHODS

A total of 166 patients with acute bronchitis were randomized to receive placebo or HL301 (600 mg/day) for 7 days. The primary endpoint was change in bronchitis severity score (BSS) from baseline visit (visit 2) to the end of treatment (visit 3). Other efficacy variables were the change of each component of the BSS (cough, sputum, dyspnea, chest pain, and crackle) with treatment, response rate, improvement rate, satisfaction rate and number of rescue medications taken.

RESULTS

Changes in the BSS from visit 2 to visit 3 were higher in the HL301 group than in the placebo group both in the full analysis set (4.57 ± 1.82 vs. 3.15 ± 3.08, p < 0.01) and in the per protocol set (4.62 ± 1.81 vs. 3.30 ± 3.03, p < 0.01). Four BSS components (cough, sputum, dyspnea, and chest pain) improved more with HL301 treatment than with placebo treatment. Participants treated with HL301 showed higher response, improvement, and satisfaction rates and less use of rescue medication than the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

HL301 (600 mg/day) was effective and safe for symptomatic treatment of acute bronchitis.

Efficacy and safety of HL301 in the treatment of acute bronchitis and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis: a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study

PURPOSE

The efficacy and safety of Chinese herbs for symptomatic treatment of bronchitis is not well established. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination product of seven herbs (HL301) for the treatment of acute bronchitis (AB) and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial design.

METHODS

A total of 160 patients with AB or with AECB were randomized to receive placebo or one of three doses of HL301 (0.6 g/day, 1.2 g/day, or 1.8 g/day) for a total of 7 days. The primary study endpoint was the change in bronchitis severity score (BSS) from the baseline visit (visit 2) to the end of treatment visit (visit 3). Other efficacy variables were percentage BSS systemic sign efficacy after treatment and change in individual BSS parameters after treatment.

FINDINGS

Changes in BSS from visit 2 to visit 3 in the three treatment groups (4.63 ± 2.24, 4.08 ± 1.63, and 4.15 ± 1.74 in the HL301 0.6 g/day, 1.2 g/day, and 1.8 g/day groups, respectively) were higher than that of the placebo group (2.88 ± 2.57) in the per protocol set (PPS) (P < .05), and it was also valid in the full analysis set (FAS). The number of participants whose symptoms (measured by BSS) improved at least 30% after treatment was higher in all three treatment groups compared to the placebo group in both the FAS and the PPS (P < .05, for all).

IMPLICATIONS

Three different doses of HL301 (0.6 g/day, 1.2 g/day, and 1.8 g/day) were effective in decreasing the BSS index compared to placebo. HL301 may be effective for symptomatic treatment of both AB and AECB.

LIMITATIONS

Essential components of HL301 have not been delineated in the study and patients with AB and AECB were indiscriminately enrolled in the present study. Respective evaluation of the efficacy of HL301 for AB and AECB will be necessary in the future.