ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: While there is an increasing number of toxicity report cases and toxicological studies on Chinese herbal medicines, the guidelines for toxicity evaluation and scheduling of Chinese herbal medicines are lacking. AIM: The aim of this study was to review the current literature on potentially toxic Chinese herbal medicines, and to develop a scheduling platform which will inform an evidence-based regulatory framework for these medicines in the community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Australian and Chinese regulations were used as a starting point to compile a list of potentially toxic herbs. Systematic literature searches of botanical and pharmaceutical Latin name, English and Chinese names and suspected toxic chemicals were conducted on Medline, PubMed and Chinese CNKI databases. RESULTS: Seventy-four Chinese herbal medicines were identified and five of them were selected for detailed study. Preclinical and clinical data were summarised at six levels. Based on the evaluation criteria, which included risk-benefit analysis, severity of toxic effects and clinical and preclinical data, four regulatory classes were proposed: Prohibited for medicinal usage, which are those with high toxicity and can lead to injury or death, e.g., aristolochia; Restricted for medicinal usage, e.g., aconite, asarum, and ephedra; Required warning label, e.g., coltsfoot; and Over-the-counter herbs for those herbs with a safe toxicity profile. CONCLUSION: Chinese herbal medicines should be scheduled based on a set of evaluation criteria, to ensure their safe use and to satisfy the need for access to the herbs. The current Chinese and Australian regulation of Chinese herbal medicines should be updated to restrict the access of some potentially toxic herbs to Chinese medicine practitioners who are qualified through registration.
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: While there is an increasing number of toxicity report cases and toxicological studies on Chinese herbal medicines, the guidelines for toxicity evaluation and scheduling of Chinese herbal medicines are lacking. AIM: The aim of this study was to review the current literature on potentially toxic Chinese herbal medicines, and to develop a scheduling platform which will inform an evidence-based regulatory framework for these medicines in the community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Australian and Chinese regulations were used as a starting point to compile a list of potentially toxic herbs. Systematic literature searches of botanical and pharmaceutical Latin name, English and Chinese names and suspected toxic chemicals were conducted on Medline, PubMed and Chinese CNKI databases. RESULTS: Seventy-four Chinese herbal medicines were identified and five of them were selected for detailed study. Preclinical and clinical data were summarised at six levels. Based on the evaluation criteria, which included risk-benefit analysis, severity of toxic effects and clinical and preclinical data, four regulatory classes were proposed: Prohibited for medicinal usage, which are those with high toxicity and can lead to injury or death, e.g., aristolochia; Restricted for medicinal usage, e.g., aconite, asarum, and ephedra; Required warning label, e.g., coltsfoot; and Over-the-counter herbs for those herbs with a safe toxicity profile. CONCLUSION: Chinese herbal medicines should be scheduled based on a set of evaluation criteria, to ensure their safe use and to satisfy the need for access to the herbs. The current Chinese and Australian regulation of Chinese herbal medicines should be updated to restrict the access of some potentially toxic herbs to Chinese medicine practitioners who are qualified through registration.
Authors: Johanna Michl; Olusheyi Bello; Geoffrey C Kite; Monique S J Simmonds; Michael Heinrich Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: F Saverio Bersani; Marialuce Coviello; Claudio Imperatori; Marta Francesconi; Christina M Hough; Giuseppe Valeriani; Gianfranco De Stefano; Flaminia Bolzan Mariotti Posocco; Rita Santacroce; Amedeo Minichino; Ornella Corazza Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.411