Literature DB >> 17061908

Botanical nomenclature in pharmacovigilance and a recommendation for standardisation.

Mohamed H Farah1, Sten Olsson, Jenny Bate, Marie Lindquist, Ralph Edwards, Monique S J Simmonds, Christine Leon, Hugo J de Boer, Mats Thulin.   

Abstract

Nomenclature of plants in pharmacology can be presented by pharmaceutical names or scientific names in the form of Linnaean binomials. In this paper, positive and negative aspects of both systems are discussed in the context of the scientific nomenclatural framework and the systems' practical applicability. The Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) runs the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring and is responsible for the WHO Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) database that currently contains 3.6 million records. In order for the UMC to monitor pharmacovigilance through ADRs to herbal medicine products the following nomenclatural criteria are important: (i) the name should indicate only one species of plant; (ii) the source for this name must be authoritative; (iii) the name should indicate which part of the plant is used. Based on these criteria, the UMC investigated four options: (i) adopt main names used in recognised (inter-) national pharmacopoeias or authoritative publications; (ii) adopt option 1, but cite the publication for all names in abbreviated form; (iii) three-part pharmaceutical names consisting of Latinised part name plus Latinised genus name, plus Latinised specific epithet; (iv) scientific binomial names, optionally with author and plant part used. The UMC has chosen the latter option and will at its adoption utilise the scientific botanical nomenclature as defined by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. This decision satisfies all criteria set by the UMC and renders the necessity of creating a new system or upgrading an old inconsistent system obsolete. The UMC has also issued an extensive synonymy checklist of vernacular, pharmaceutical and scientific names for the herbals in the WHO ADR database. We strongly recommend the adoption of scientific names to denote plant ingredients in medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17061908     DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200629110-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  6 in total

1.  Pharmacovigilance of herbal products in India.

Authors:  P Wal; A Wal; S Gupta; G Sharma; Ak Rai
Journal:  J Young Pharm       Date:  2011-07

2.  Comparative authentication of Hypericum perforatum herbal products using DNA metabarcoding, TLC and HPLC-MS.

Authors:  Ancuta Cristina Raclariu; Ramona Paltinean; Laurian Vlase; Aurélie Labarre; Vincent Manzanilla; Mihael Cristin Ichim; Gianina Crisan; Anne Krag Brysting; Hugo de Boer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Unidentifiable by morphology: DNA barcoding of plant material in local markets in Iran.

Authors:  Abdolbaset Ghorbani; Yousef Saeedi; Hugo J de Boer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A rapid HPTLC method to estimate piperine in Ayurvedic formulations.

Authors:  Alok K Hazra; Banti Chakraborty; Achintya Mitra; Tapas Kumar Sur
Journal:  J Ayurveda Integr Med       Date:  2018-10-11

5.  Veronica officinalis Product Authentication Using DNA Metabarcoding and HPLC-MS Reveals Widespread Adulteration with Veronica chamaedrys.

Authors:  Ancuta C Raclariu; Andrei Mocan; Madalina O Popa; Laurian Vlase; Mihael C Ichim; Gianina Crisan; Anne K Brysting; Hugo de Boer
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 5.810

6.  Analysis of Hepatobiliary Disorder Reports Associated With the Use of Herbal Medicines in the Global Suspected ADR Database Vigibase.

Authors:  Florence van Hunsel; Sonja van de Koppel; Souad Skalli; Andrea Kuemmerle; Lida Teng; Jia-Bo Wang; Joanne Barnes
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 5.810

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.