Menu ]
Next Article ]

 

Phytotherapy Reviews & Commentary

by Donald J. Brown, ND

 

Comparing Saw Palmetto Extract and Finasteride for BPH

Carraro JC, Raynaud JP, Koch G, et al. Comparison of phytotherapy (PermixonŽ) with finasteride in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia: A randomized international study of 1,098 patients. Prostate 1996; 29:231-40.

Summary: A six month, double-blind randomized equivalence study compared the effects for the saw palmetto extract PermixonŽ to the 5a-reductase inhibitor, finasteride (ProscarŽ). The study enrolled 1,098 men over the age of 50 years with moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and used the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) as the primary end-point. Men were randomized to receive either 160 mg of PermixonŽ twice daily or finasteride at a single daily dose of 5 mg. Patients who had received either a-adrenergic receptor antagonists or other phytomedicines (e.g. Pygeum africanum or nettle root) were required to undergo a 2 week washout period prior to beginning treatment. Each patient was evaluated pre-study, and at 6, 13, and 26 weeks. At each visit, peak and mean urinary flow rates were measured, the IPSS was determined, and the patient was asked to complete quality of life and sexual function questionnaires. Additionally, at weeks 13 and 26, patients underwent transrectal and abdominal ultrasound examinations to assess prostatic volume and postvoid residual urine as well as blood chemistries, CBC, and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assay (a baseline PSA was also performed). Of the 1,098 patients randomized to treatment, 553 received PermixonŽ and 545 received finasteride. Of these 951 completed the study with a total dropout of 16% in the PermixonŽ group and 11% in the finasteride group. Both treatments were determined to decrease the symptoms of BPH equally. PermixonŽ decreased the IPSS by 37% compared to 39% for finasteride. Quality of life improved in both groups 38% for PermixonŽ and 41% for finasteride. Peak urinary flow improved by 25% in the PermixonŽ compared to 30% in the finasteride group. Finasteride markedly decreased prostatic volume (18%) and PSA (41%) while PermixonŽ had minimal effect on volume (6% decrease) and no effect on PSA. Patients receiving PermixonŽ had minimal complaints of decreased libido and impotence while this was more common in the finasteride group. Dysuria was more frequent in the finasteride group while urinary retention was higher for the PermixonŽ group, but the differences did not exceed 1% for these complications.

Commentary: In the Feb/Mar 1997 TLfDP, I reported on the 3 year, open-label study with 435 BPH patients showing the efficacy of the commercial saw palmetto extract known in Europe as IDS 89.1 In the commentary, I made brief mention of this study which was unpublished at the time. The study was initially presented at the Third International Consultation on BPH in Monaco, June 26-29, 1995. According to an editorial in the same issue of Prostate, the presentation raised quite a stir at the conference.2 The editorial is largely complimentary and brings out some solid criticisms of the study including the lack of a placebo arm and the absence of a placebo run-in period. It is important to note that the study also indicates that finasteride did seem to work more effectively in reducing prostate size in men with larger prostates due to BPH while PermixonŽ was more effective in reducing the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) of men with smaller prostate size. This is consistent with other studies on finasteride and one of the reasons it has recently come under fire.3 However, it also demonstrates the difficulty in trying to present clear parameters for demonstrating efficacy in the treatment of mild to moderate BPH. The use of LUTS has been recommended as a response to the lack of clarity in diagnosing BPH based on prostate size, urine flow, and subjective symptoms.

PermixonŽ is the original liposterolic extract of saw palmetto berries (Serenoa repens) created by the pharmaceutical division of Pierre Fabre in France. The hexane extract is comprised of free (90%) and esterified (7%) fatty acids, sterols, polyprenic compounds, and flavonoids. This particular extract was the template for current liposterolic extracts manufactured using either ethanol or CO2 extraction. As is the case with all liposterolic extracts, the therapeutic dose is 320 mg daily. Therapeutic results should be expected in six to eight weeks but it is important to remember that the new rule of thumb for determining clinical efficacy with BPH is six months or longer. As has been reported in previous reviews on saw palmetto, the liposterolic extract is largely devoid of the side effects noted for prescription BPH drugs.

This study establishes another milestone for saw palmetto extract as a viable option in the management of mild to moderate BPH. More long-term trials are still needed as well as the logical comparison of saw palmetto extract with a-adrenergic receptor antagonists. It may be that the diverse mechanisms of action found for saw palmetto and other phytomedicines are the best approach to a condition for which we continue to have poor clinical understanding.

References

1. Bach D, Ebeling L. Long-term drug treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia results of a prospective 3-year multicenter study using Sabal extract IDS 89. Phytomed 1996; 3:105-11.

2. Denis LJ. Editorial review of Comparison of phytotherapy (PermixonŽ) with finasteride in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia: A randomized international study of 1,098 patients. Prostate 1996: 29:241-2.

3. Boyle P, Gould AL. Prostate volume predicts outcome of treatment of BPH with finasteride: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Urol 1996; 155:572A.

 

Treatment of Hyperkeratotic Plantar Lesions with

Tagetes erecta

Khan MT, Potter M, Birch I. Podiatric treatment of hyperkeratotic plantar lesions with marigold Tagetes erecta. Phyother Res 1996; 10:211-4.

Summary: Thirty adult patients with hyperkeratotic lesions (corn and callus) and scheduled for surgery were entered in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine the efficacy of topical Tagetes erecta (African or Aztec marigold). The lesions were of long-standing duration (greater than 2 years) and there was no concomitant topical treatment. The study lasted eight weeks with actual treatment lasting for the first four weeks followed by observation at the end of weeks six and eight. A pain diary was completed by patients throughout the trial period and brought to the clinic on each visit. The size of the lesion was measured by an independent assessor pretreatment and on each visit. Patients were allocated to three different groups: ten received topical marigold therapy with a protective pad (Group A); ten received treatment with a topical placebo and protective pad (Group B); and ten received topical marigold treatment with no protective pad (Group C). Marigold preparations used in the study included a paste, tincture and oil prepared according to the British Patent Specification (1984), the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the US (1979), and the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia for Podologists (1986). Pre-operatively (week one), all patients were instructed to apply either the active or placebo tincture over the lesion. The overlying callus was then removed and tincture re-applied. For Groups A and B a 5 mm semi-compressed felt cavity pad was placed over the lesion and either marigold or placebo paste placed in the cavity. The cavity was covered with surgical tape. Group C applied only the marigold paste covered with gauze and used no cavity pad. These treatments were repeated weekly at weeks 2, 3 and 4. At the end of four clinic treatments, patients self-treated at home with either marigold or placebo tincture. The home regimen consisted of topical application of a few drops of the tincture followed by oil and massaged into the lesion. This was repeated twice a day for week 5, once daily during week 6, three times weekly during week 7, and no treatment during week 8. Tubiform foam was used over the lesion every day for week 5 and three times during week 6. In comparison to Group B, there was a significant reduction in callus width (p<0.001), callus length (p<0.001), and pain (p<0.001). Group A also fared better than Group C pointing to the value of the protective pad in combination with the marigold treatment.

Commentary: Hyperkeratotic lesions, a.k.a. the ol corn and callus, are the most common dermatological condition treated in podiatry practice. Treatment usually consists of a combination of chemical, biomechanical, and surgical interventions. The aim of treatment is to restore the skin and subcutaneous tissue to normal and eliminate the stresses responsible for the formation of corn and callus. Most patients will require ongoing treatment.

Tagetes erecta is also known by the common names African marigold, Aztec marigold, and big marigold.1 This species of marigold is not related to the common marigold known as Calendula officinalis. However, it is interesting that the topical application of the flowers of calendula is used in conditions that are also indicated for Tagetes erecta leaf and flower preparations. These include skin ulceration and inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis. It is also interesting to note the common use of Tagetes erecta preparations in podiatry practices in Great Britain for the treatment of skin and nail conditions. The chemical action of the flower and leaf preparation includes pain relief and tissue softening in cases of hyperkeratotic lesions.2 It should also be noted that preparations labeled marigold oil are usually derived from Tagetes erecta, Tagetes minuta, or Tagetes patula.3

This study points to the need to expand our marigold awareness and consider wider use of Tagetes species for many of the topical applications typically reserved for Calendula officinalis. Other applications for Tagetes species include verrucae, onychomycosis, and decubitus ulcers.4,5

References

1. Leung AY, Foster S. Encyclopedia of Common Natural Ingredients Used in Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996, 482-3.

2. Saify ZS. Tagetes, the herb that cures corns and callosities. J Br Assoc Hom Chiropodists 1988; 2:24-5.

3. Tisserand R, Balacs T. Essential Oil Safety: A Guide for Health Care Professionals. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1995, 7-8.

4. Khan MT. Treatment of onychomycosis with marigold therapy. J Br Assoc Hom Chiropodists 1992; 8:12-16.

5. Rawal RS, Devitt R, Kahn MT: Treatment of verrucae pedis using marigold therapy. J Br Assoc Hom Chiropodists 1988; 4:9-12.

 

Selected Herbal Summaries/Updates

Note: Id like to thank Dr. Eric Yarnell for the preparation of these summaries and the permission to print them in this column.

Buckwheat Tea, Rutin and Venous Insufficiency

Ihme N, Kiesewetter H, Jung F, et al. Leg edema protection from a buckwheat herb tea in patients with chronic venous insufficiency: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 50:443-7.

Summary: For two weeks, the 77 male and female volunteers in this study drank a placebo tea consisting of Malva sylvestris or M. neglecta (mallow) leaves. The mallow tea contained only minute amounts of flavonoids. For the next 12 weeks they were randomly assigned to drink three cups daily of either the placebo tea or Fagopyrum esculentum (buckwheat) tea standardized to contain 5% total flavonoids. Rutin was considered the primary active constituent of the buckwheat tea, and study participants drinking the study tea received 270 mg of rutin daily. Ten patients dropped out of the study for reasons unrelated to the treatment. Change in total leg volume was reduced significantly in patients drinking buckwheat tea compared to those drinking the mallow tea. This was largely due to prevention of accumulation of extra fluid in the legs of participants drinking buckwheat tea. Venous diameter assessed sonographically showed no difference between the groups. Capillary permeability, assessed using fluorescence angiography, was improved in both groups but the difference in favor of the buckwheat tea fell short of significance. Symptoms were improved in both groups though not significantly more in the treatment group compared to the placebo group. There were no reported adverse events from drinking buckwheat tea.

Safety of Echinacea

Parnham MJ. Benefit-risk assessment of the squeezed sap of the purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea) for long-term oral immunostimulation. Phytomed 1996; 3:95-102.

Summary: A review of the safety of echinacea (Echinacea purpurea) is presented in this paper. The mechanism of action of echinacea is first considered, particularly the action of the polysaccharide, arabinogalactan. The author specifically mentions echinaceas ability to stimulate neutrophil phagocytosis and cytokine secretion by macrophages. Transient lymphopenia and changes in the CD4/CD8 ratio are considered the result of redistribution of lymphocytes to areas of infection in response to echinacea. Very high doses (1,000 times greater than typically used) are immunosuppressive. The author cites data showing a lack of mutagenicity and a very low acute toxicity for echinacea.

Various studies in humans using intramuscular, intravenous and oral echinacea for the treatment of infections of the respiratory tract, urinary tract, uterus, vagina and breast are considered. Use of intramuscular echinacea preparations for short periods in children has been shown to be completely safe, as has longer term (up to 12 weeks) use of oral echinacea in adults and children. Intravenous echinacea preparations cause a predictable response attributed to cytokine production: fever, shivering, nausea and transient lymphopenia. These effects are considered part of the beneficial action of echinacea and not side effects. Additionally, one study showing therapeutic benefit and lack of toxicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is mentioned. Benefits in many of these studies are seen only in persons with mild to moderate immune compromise.

 


http://www.tldp.com
info@townsendletter.com
360-385-6021
360-385-0699 (fax)

Š 1983-2002 Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients
All Rights Reserved.

ADVERTISERS CLICK HERE FOR INFO