| Literature DB >> 26903775 |
Akshaya Srikanth Bhagavathula1, Asim Ahmed Elnour2, Abdulla Shehab3.
Abstract
The use of herbal medicines continues to expand rapidly across world and many people show positive interest to use herbal products for their health. The safety of herbal supplements has become a globally major concern in national and international health authorities due to increasing adverse events and adulterations. It is difficult to analyze herbal products that cause adverse events due to lack of sufficient information and expertise. Inadequate regulatory measures, weak quality control system and uncontrolled distribution channels are some of reasons that enhance the informal pharmaceutical market. In recent years, the unfulfilled desire for sex has been a subject that has aroused increasing public interest with respect to improve sexual functions. The use of herbal medicines substantially increased due to escalated prevalence and impact of sexual problems worldwide and estimates predicting the incidence to raise over 320 million by year 2025. The various reasons to use herbal supplements in men may be due to experiencing changes in erectile dysfunction (ED) due to certain medical conditions such as diabetes and hypertension and bodily changes as a normal part of life and aging. There is a lack of adequate evidence, no impetus to evaluate and absence of any regulatory obligations to undertake rigorous testing for safety and efficacy of herbal supplements before they sold over-the-counter (OTC). Pharmacovigilance on herbal supplements is still not well established. Sexual enhancing herbals are on demand in men health but informal adulteration is growing issue of concern. Recently, increase in use of herbal supplements for erectile dysfunction has laid a path for many illegal compositions. This paper explores facts and evidences that were observed in different countries attempting to demonstrate the importance of strengthening regulatory system to strengthen the application of pharmacovigilance principles on sexual enhancing supplements. We hereby explore the problem of sexual herbal supplements from pharmacovigilance perspectives. We provide insights into the various concerns and call for collaboration to resolve the problem. We highly recommend to include herbal medicines in national pharmacovigilance systems and to establish comprehensive national pharmacovigilance program to raise the awareness about herbal medicines particularly those used in enhancing sexual desire.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26903775 PMCID: PMC4720019 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2015.01.018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.330
Causality categories: The causality categories described by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre.
| 1 | A clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, occurring in a plausible time relationship to drug administration, and which cannot be explained by concurrent disease or other drugs or chemicals. The response to withdrawal of the drugs (dechallenge) should be clinically plausible. The event must be definitive pharmacologically or phenomenologically, using a satisfactory rechallenge procedure if necessary | |
| 2 | A clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, with a reasonable time sequence to administration of the drug, unlikely to be attributed to concurrent disease or other drugs or chemicals, and which follows a clinically reasonable response on withdrawal (dechallenge). Rechallenge information is not required to fulfil this definition | |
| 3 | A clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, with a reasonable time sequence to administrations of the drug, but which could also be explained by concurrent disease or other drugs or chemicals. Information on drug withdrawal may be lacking or unclear | |
| 4 | A clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, with a temporal relationship to drug administration which makes a causal relationship improbable, and in which other drugs, chemicals or underlying disease provides plausible explanations | |
| 5 | A clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, reported as an adverse reaction, about which more data are essential for a proper assessment, or the additional data are under examination | |
| 6 | A report suggesting an adverse reaction which cannot be judged because information is insufficient or contradictory, and which cannot be supplemented or verified | |
| Category A | “Reports including good reasons and sufficient documentation to assume a causal relationship, in the sense of plausible, conceivable, likely, but not necessarily highly probable” | |
| Category B | “Reports containing sufficient information to accept the possibility of a causal relationship, in the sense of not impossible and not unlikely, although the connection is uncertain and may be even doubtful, e.g. because of missing data, insufficient evidence or the possibility of another explanation” | |
| Category C | “Reports where causality is, for one or another reason, not assessable, e.g. because of missing or conflicting data” | |