|
|
The Commission E Monographs |
| | |
THE COMPLETE GERMAN COMMISSION E MONOGRAPHS
THERAPEUTIC GUIDE TO HERBAL MEDICINES
Copyright © 1999 American Botanical Council
Part One Introduction
<< Previous | Table Of Contents | Next >>
Commission E
Evaluation Methods and Criteria
Bibliographic Review
According to Section 26 of the Second Medicines Act, in accordance with
applicable European drug law, bibliographic data were used to assess the safety
and efficacy of medicines evaluated by Commission E. Members used 100-200
references from around the world to evaluate each herb (Schilcher, 1997b).
Unlike FDA drug reviews in which data is passively submitted to the agency by
the manufacturer, the members of Commission E actively collected bibliographic
data on the herbal drugs being reviewed. This work has been supported since 1992
by the industry and scientific coalition Kooperation Phytopharmaka
(Steinhoff, 1997a). The following are examples of the data collected and
reviewed:
1. Traditional use. Literature can reveal the long-term use of a
botanical substance and can indicate relative safety and presumed efficacy.
2. Chemical data. Herbal drugs have been analyzed to determine their
chemical composition, especially the main constituents. Knowledge of these
chemical constituents can indicate the potential activity and/or toxicity of a
botanical, depending on the known range of compounds and their relative
quantities.
3. Experimental, pharmacological, and toxicological studies.
Laboratory/experimental (in vitro) and pharmacological/toxicological (in vivo)
studies are published worldwide on whole plant extracts or constituents of
medicinal plants. These studies provide documentation of the historical or
traditional uses of a plant, even though clinical studies may be lacking.
4. Clinical studies. In many European countries, clinical studies on
leading medicinal plants and phytomedicines are conducted routinely, according
to strict scientific controls. These studies can suggest and often confirm the
safety and efficacy of herbs and their preparations. Many clinical studies
conducted recently correspond to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines.
5. Field and epidemiological studies. The use of a medicinal plant by a
particular population over time is also useful when evaluating safety and
efficacy. The Commission reviewed such studies, if they were available.
6. Patient case records submitted from physicians' files. Case reports
from individual patients in clinical practice, although not considered as
important as controlled clinical studies, are nevertheless useful in obtaining
information from the experiences of attending physicians using herbs and
phytomedicines.
7. Additional studies, including unpublished proprietary data submitted by
manufacturers. On occasion, a particular herb may have extensive chemical,
toxicological, pharmacological, and clinical testing conducted by a
manufacturer. The Commission was able to review such data, while maintaining the
confidentiality of the information. Commission referee Dr. K. Keller of BfArM
writes, "Due to the great number of individual drugs, the work of the
committee was concentrated on the evaluation of active constituents. The
evaluation is based on bibliographic data presented by manufacturers or
organizations of manufacturers of herbal medicinal products. These documents are
completed by data obtained from literature search, for example online research
in EMBASE, MEDLARS, and TOXALL, and other data available to our office."
(Keller, 1992.)
The proposed monograph format was published and reviewed in about three
months by all Commission members, other scientists, scientific associations,
universities, and other experts, who could make comments to the proposed
monograph. All comments were then considered by the Commission in its final
monograph (Schilcher, 1997b).
References
Readers will quickly notice that the Commission E monographs do not include
any references to the literature used by the Commission members in assessing the
safety and efficacy of the herbal drugs under review. This is unlike the format
for the monographs published in 1990 and subsequently by ESCOP. Commission E and
ESCOP monographs are similar insofar as they are therapeutic monographs and do
not detail standards for quality as are found in a pharmacopeial monograph.
According to Prof. Schilcher every monograph has a Begrundung , an
unpublished justification with most of the relevant references. This material is
stored at the BfArM in Berlin and only in conflicts or cases of disputes to the
Medical Act can an attorney or a scientific organization view these references.
The references were originally included in data reviewed by members of the
Commission in determining monograph evaluations (Schilcher, 1998a).
The Commission E monographs were developed to inform the consumer and to
facilitate the companies' applications for registration of the herbs as licensed
drugs. The monographs were created as official government documents. Although
the monographs cannot serve as a guide to additional information, they are based
on extensive review of the scientific and historical data as well as the
interdisciplinary expertise of the members of the Commission. Also, some of the
materials upon which the monographs were based were unpublished studies of
proprietary products from manufacturers in Germany; thus, these references could
not be published. The background material for these monographs, produced by Kooperation
Phytopharmaka (KP), did contain references but these longer documents have
not been published (Steinhoff, 1997). Thus, for these reasons, references are
not included in Commission E's monographs.
In 1992 Kooperation Phytopharmaka was established as an umbrella
organization of about 150 pharmaceutical manufacturers particularly active in
the field of phytomedicine. Kooperation Phytopharmaka is advised by three
associations of the pharmaceutical industry, Bundesfachverband der
Arzneimittel-Hersteller e.V. (BAH, the Federal Association of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers), Bundesverband der Pharmazeuthischen Industrie e.V. (BPI,
the Federal Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry), and the Verband der
Reformwaren-Hersteller e.V. (VRH, the Association of Manufacturers of Health
Foods), as well as the Deutsche Gessellschaft für Phytotherapie e.V.
(GPhy, the German Society of Phytotherapy), a scientific organization. One of
the main objectives of KP since its beginning has been the collection and
preparation of scientific material on medicinal plants, evaluation of this
material by experts in the field of phytomedicine, and submission of this
prepared material (comparable to an expert report) to Commission E (Steinhoff,
1997). These summaries consist of exhaustive literature reviews on chemistry,
toxicology, pharmacology, and clinical experience (some exceeding 100 pages). No
positive or negative recommendation is included in these summaries (Busse,
1997c). Many of the Commission E monographs are based on material prepared by
KP, but the KP monographs served as only one basis for the development of the
Commission E monographs. In the past few years KP has taken on the task of
revising the "old" material, i.e., collecting information, (e.g.,
clinical studies) published since the publication of the Commission E monograph.
This updated material is now being used by manufacturers to lend support to
substantiation of individual therapeutic indications and efficacy of herbal drug
products during the process of re-registration for drug status with the BfArM
(Steinhoff, 1997).
Table 12:
Clinical Studies on Leading European Phytomedicines
|
This table lists leading phytomedicines in Germany and the number of
clinical studies cited in Rational Phytotherapy (Schulz, Hänsel, and
Tyler, 1998). In some cases, all studies were conducted on one proprietary
product such as Horse Chestnut seed extract where in other categories, for
example, ginkgo, the studies were based on two standardized extracts. In
yet others, different types of galenical preparations were used in
different studies. For example, some valerian
studies were based on aqueous extracts while others used a hydro-alcoholic
extract; 12 clinical trials are referenced using alcoholic extracts of St.
John's Wort (some also containing valerian extract) and 10 based on a
leading standardized extract.
|
Phytomedicine |
Years |
Number
of Studies |
Total
Persons |
|
Garlic |
1986-92 |
18 |
2,920 |
Ginkgo |
1975-96 |
36 |
2,326 |
Hawthorn |
1981-96 |
13 |
791 |
Horse Chestnut seed |
1973-96 |
8 |
798 |
Kava Kava |
1989-95 |
6 |
469 |
St. John's Wort |
1979-97 |
22 |
1,851 |
Valerian |
1977-96 |
8 |
560 |
Source: Schulz, Hänsel, and Tyler, 1998.
|
Evaluation of Safety
and Efficacy: Positive and Negative Monographs
The Commission E review process is only slightly comparable to the OTC review
process of old drugs conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since
1972. The results of field studies and single cases were only eligible when
evaluated according to standards. When lacking controlled studies, safety and
efficacy for known substances still can be determined on the basis of other
information, such as well documented review articles, older clinical trials, and
well documented knowledge on traditional use (Busse, 1996). However, experience
from long-term therapeutic or traditional use without supplementary data cannot
be accepted as sufficient evidence of safety (Busse, 1997c).
In comparing the German legal and regulatory situation with that of the U.S.,
Commission E member M. Wiesenauer notes that plant drugs were equated with
synthetic drugs in Germany by legislative fiat. Then the Commission set about
the task of determining the safety and effectiveness of each preparation
(Wiesenauer, 1989). Approved and unapproved herbs are divided into separate
sections of this book. There are several ways to distinguish between a positive
and negative monograph. Positive monographs always show the approved use and
dosage. If no approved uses are given in a monograph, if there is no dosage
listed, and if the efficacy of the plant has not been sufficiently proven, or
there are risks that outweigh the documented benefits (e.g., Monkshood, Male
Fern), the assessment will be a negative one (Steinhoff, 1994a).
Several of the herbs approved by Commission E are relatively powerful,
pharmacologically active, and also potentially toxic herbs. "It is
important to realise that Commission E does not restrict its activities to
mildly acting products, but also prepares monographs on potent herbal remedies,
such as Hyoscyamus niger [Henbane], Rauvolfia serpentina [Indian
Snakeroot] and Urginea maritima [Squill], all of which should be treated
as prescription only drugs. In other words, the existence of a positive
Commission E monograph does not imply that the herbal drug is sufficiently
harmless to be treated as an over-the-counter product. However, as each
monograph outlines the accepted uses and health risks of the herb in question,
the work of the Commission E provides useful information if one has to assess
the safety of individual source plants." (Gericke, 1995.)
In a few cases new data necessitated the change of an herbal drug from
approved status to unapproved as in the case of Bishop's
Weed fruit, originally published as an approved monograph in 1986. However, in
1994, as a result of a new risk-benefit assessment based on toxicological data
and case reports of adverse reactions, the original monograph was replaced (not
revised) with a new negative monograph that noted the risks of this herb
(Keller, 1998; Steinhoff, 1997b). The same process also occurred with Madder
root, granted a positive monograph for treatment of kidney stones in 1986, but
replaced in 1992 with a negative monograph, due to new pharmacological research
on rats indicating that the compound lucidin may be mutagenic and carcinogenic.
Reclassification of both Bishop's Weed fruit and Madder root to negative
monograph status (Unapproved) because of new data indicating potential risks
that outweigh possible benefits attests to the rationality of the Commission E
process. This constant vigilance by Commission members regarding what has been
termed the "doctrine of absolute proof" to assess safety is a
significant characteristic of the Commission E evaluation process.
Positive
(Approved) Monographs
As is true for any body of scientists evaluating the benefits and
marketability of medicines, Commission E was concerned about the safety of the
herbs and phytomedicines it reviewed. According to Professor Varro E. Tyler,
Dean and Distinguished Professor of Pharmacognosy Emeritus at Purdue University,
the Commission reviewed safety data according to a "doctrine of absolute
proof" for safety (Tyler, 1994). The Commission attempted to ensure that
these medicines were reasonably safe when used according to the dosage,
contraindications, and other warnings and provisions specified in the
monographs.
Regarding efficacy, the Commission was guided by what Professor Tyler has
termed the "doctrine of reasonable certainty." (Tyler, 1994.) That is,
as long as the scientific data provided reasonable verification of particular
historical use, the Commission would grant a positive evaluation. Accordingly,
some of the early work of the Commission (1978 - 1989) was characterized by
positive evaluations for some herbs for which a significant body of clinical
studies did not exist. Most positively evaluated monographs are based on open
clinical studies or data derived from field studies, patient case records, and
pharmacological research or proprietary data submitted by individual companies
(Schilcher, 1997b). Numerous negative evaluations also were made during this
period.
However, after 1990 the Commission began to focus more on good clinical
practices (GCP) clinical studies to document the uses. In some cases, monographs
for herbs that previously were granted approval for several uses were amended to
a more restricted indication. A good example is the monograph for Hawthorn,
originally published in 1984. The Hawthorn monograph initially contained a range
of cardiovascular indications that included applications between stages I and II
of the New York Heart Association's functional classification for heart disease.
The approved indications formerly read as follows: "sensation of pressure
and anxiety in the heart area," "geriatric heart condition that does
not yet require digitalis," and "mild forms of bradycardia."
However, in July 1994 the Commission published four separate monographs for
various parts of the hawthorn plant. Only Hawthorn leaf with flower was approved
for the more limited indication "for decreasing cardiac performance as
described in functional Stage II of NYHA." This approval was based on
clinical studies published for proprietary medicines made of both hawthorn parts
and based on observations by physicians from clinical experience. Other hawthorn
preparations made individually from berry (fruit), leaf, or flower were
negatively evaluated due to the lack of evidence in clinical trials. However,
they are still sold as "traditionally used Hawthorn preparations" only
to support general heart function, according to provisions of Article 109a of
the AMG (Schilcher, 1997b). (See Traditional Medicines above.)
This process of negative evaluations of the older dosage forms was challenged
by the BAH. BAH suggested that because hawthorn preparations "form an
important part of the German phytomedicines market with respect to
self-medication," therefore, "when new clinical studies become
available, it is important to check, and possibly amend, the older monographs,
because the status of scientific knowledge represented by them may change owing
to new research results. This, however, must under no circumstances
automatically mean that the older results published in a monograph are no longer
valid, and, unless there is a direct conflict, those results must maintain their
status as scientific documentation and be included in a monograph as before,
perhaps with a slightly modified indication claim." Unfortunately,
Commission E did not agree with this proposition, and the final monographs on
Crataegus [Hawthorn] were published on 19 July 1994 without the same indications
published in the 1984 monograph (Steinhoff, 1997). (For more on Hawthorn, please
see pages 39 and 63.)
Negative
(Unapproved) Monographs
Negative assessments (i.e., Unapproved monographs) were made by Commission E
in cases where "no plausible evidence of efficacy" was available or
when safety concerns outweighed the potential benefits. The objective of the
Commission was to "eliminate drugs with even minor risks, because these
risks are not tolerable if they are not balanced by an acceptable benefit."
(Keller, 1992.) Also, the Commission published negative monographs for medicinal
plants which had no clinical or pharmacological studies or no plausible evidence
of efficacy reported in traditional medicine or empirical medicine (Schilcher,
1997b). Herbs that were evaluated negatively are published in the Unapproved
Herbs section of this book. Monographs on these herbal drugs and their
phytomedicinal preparations are published without dosage recommendations.
"Herbs which pose a risk have to be withdrawn immediately." (Busse,
1997c.) Unapproved Herbs that do not pose a health risk can be sold in the
German market only until the year 2004.
According to Prof. Schilcher, the fact that by 1995 the Commission had
negatively evaluated at least 115 herbal drugs is evidence that in Germany
"scientifically oriented criteria for assessment apply for plant
medicines." (Schilcher, 1997b.)
Interestingly, the 126 unapproved monographs, although they constitute only
33 percent of the total monographs published, produce 97 of the total number of
categories of adverse side effects. This is consistent with the fact that 45
herbs were negatively evaluated precisely due to documentation or reasonable
suspicion of these types of risks. By comparison, the 254 positive monographs
contain only 75 types of side effects (mostly adverse; not all side effects
listed are adverse). This constitutes 29 percent more side effects noted for
Unapproved herbs than for Approved herbs. (This data is found in Table 13.)
Table 13:
Unapproved Monographs with Documented or Suspected Risk |
The herbs in this table were evaluated negatively by Commission E due
to the presence of actual risk or concern about potential risks. In some
cases, documentation of benefit also may be inadequate. For complete
information on some risks, the monograph should be consulted. |
Herb |
Risk |
|
Angelica seed and herb |
Photosensitivity caused by coumarins |
Basil |
Mutagenic effect of estragole |
Bilberry leaf |
High or chronic dose can cause intoxication |
Bishop’s Weed fruit |
Allergic reactions; photosensitivity due to khellin |
Bladderwrack |
Hyperthyroidism due to daily dose over 150 mcg iodine |
Borage |
Hepatotoxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids |
Bryonia |
Numerous risks cited |
Celery |
Allergic skin reactions; can contain large amounts of phototoxic
furanocoumarin |
Chamomile, Roman |
Rare allergic reactions |
Cinnamon flower |
Allergic reactions to skin and mucosa |
Cocoa |
Allergic skin reactions and migraine headaches |
Colocynth |
G.i. irritation and possible hemorrhagic diarrhea due to curcurbitacin;
kidney damage, cystitis |
Coltsfoot |
Hepatotoxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids |
Delphinium flower |
Alkaloids can cause bradycardia, hypotension, cardiac arrest, central
paralyzing and curare-like effect on respiratory system |
Elecampane |
Irritation of mucosa and allergic contact dermatitis due to
alantolactone |
Ergot |
Wide spectrum of activity |
Goat’s Rue |
Hypoglycemic effect of galegin |
Hound’s Tongue |
Hepatotoxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids |
Kelp |
Hyperthyroidism due to daily dose over 150 mcg iodine |
Lemongrass, Citronella oil |
Toxic alveolitis associated with inhaling undetermined amount of oil |
Liverwort herb |
Irritation of skin and mucous membranes associated with protoanemonin
in fresh plants |
Madder root |
Mutagenic and carcinogenic potential of lucidin content |
Male Fern |
Wide spectrum of adverse reactions |
Marjoram |
Potential unclear risks of arbutin and hydroxyquinone content |
Marsh Tea |
Poisoning associated with abusive dosing, e.g., abortions |
Monkshood |
Serious, varied spectrum of effects possible within therapeutic dose |
Mugwort |
Abortifacient action reported. |
Nutmeg |
Psychoactive, abortifacient effect of large doses |
Nux Vomica |
Spastic CNS action of strychnine |
Oleander leaf |
Poisoning, sometimes fatal, due to oleandrin |
Papain |
Increased tendency to bleed for someone with clotting disorders |
Parsley seed |
Large doses of apiol in essential oil produce vascular congestion and
contraction of smooth muscles in bladder, intestines, and uterus |
Pasque flower |
Fresh plants and preparations with protoanemonin produce severe
irritation of skin and mucosa |
Periwinkle |
Suppressed immune system in animal experiments |
Petasites leaf |
Hepatotoxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids |
Rhododendron, Rusty-leaved |
Poisoning due to grayanotoxine content |
Rue |
Phototoxic and mutagenic effects, liver and kidney damage associated
with furanocoumarins |
Saffron |
Adverse effects noted in doses over 10 g used for abortion |
Sarsaparilla root |
Gastric irritation and temporary kidney impairment suspected |
Scotch Broom flower |
Contraindicated in MAOI therapy and hypertension |
Senecio herb |
Hepatotoxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids |
Soapwort herb, Red |
Mucous membrane irritation with high levels of saponins |
Tansy flower and herb |
Poisoning due to abuse of large doses of herb with possible thujone
content of oil |
Walnut hull |
Potential mutagenic effect of juglone |
Yohimbe bark |
Nervousness, tremor, sleeplessness, anxiety, hypertension, and
tachycardia, nausea, vomiting associated with therapeutic administration
of yohimbine; interaction with psychopharmacological herbs |
Negative-Null
(Unapproved) Monographs
If there is neither a risk nor sufficiently documented efficacy, the
monograph is termed null by Commission E. The term neutral is
preferred by the German manufacturers. Null (neutral) monographs do not note any
risk associated with the use of the herbs (Steinhoff, 1997). Nevertheless,
despite the fact that the industry uses the term neutral , "the
official position [of BfArM] is that they are negative monographs because there
is a negative vote on individual claims promoted by industry." (Keller,
1998a, b.) The term "null" is used internally by the Commission to
refer to these so-called "neutral" monographs, but they are published
as "negative" in the Bundesanzeiger (Schilcher, 1997b). Because
they have received a negative evaluation due to lack of scientific
documentation, they are included in the Unapproved Herbs section of this book.
As seen in Table 14, many of these 46 herbs are common foods (Figs and Spinach
leaf), spices (Dill weed and Oregano), and tea ingredients (Hibiscus, Raspberry
leaf, and Rose Hip), which, despite lack of documentation, are relatively safe
in normal use. Prof. Schilcher notes that if the industry is able to provide new
studies to document efficacy, they may be able to achieve positive status as
drugs, but no new monographs will be produced (Schilcher, 1998a). Table 14
provides a complete list of negative monographs without documented risk.
Table 14:
Unapproved Monographs with No Documented Risk |
The following 57 botanical drugs were negatively evaluated by
Commission E because they lacked scientific documentation of the uses
claimed by industry. They are considered relatively safe since no
documentation was made of risks; they are considered "neutral"
by the German phytomedicine industry.
|
Ash |
Hollyhock flower |
Orris root |
Alpine Lady’s Mantle |
Horse Chestnut leaf |
Papaya leaf |
Blackberry root |
Hyssop |
Peony |
Burdock root |
Jambolan seed |
Pimpinella |
Calendula herb |
Linden Charcoal |
Raspberry leaf |
Cat’s Foot flower |
Linden flower, Silver |
Rose Hip |
Chestnut leaf |
Linden leaf |
Rose Hip and seed |
Cornflower |
Linden wood |
Rose Hip seed |
Damiana leaf and herb |
Loofa |
Rupturewort |
Dill weed |
Lungwort |
Red Sandalwood |
Echinacea angustifolia herb & root/Pallida herb |
Mentzelia |
Spinach leaf |
Eyebright |
Milk Thistle herb |
Strawberry leaf |
Figs |
Mountain Ash berry |
Sweet Woodruff |
Ginkgo Biloba leaf |
Muira Puama |
Verbena herb |
Hawthorn berry |
Night-blooming Cereus |
Veronica herb |
Hawthorn flower |
Oat herb |
White Dead Nettle herb |
Hawthorn leaf |
Olive leaf |
Zedoary rhizome |
Heather herb and flower |
Olive oil |
|
Hibiscus |
Oregano |
|
<< Previous | Table Of Contents | Next >>
|
|
| |
|
|
|