Different standards for reporting ADRs to herbal remedies and conventional OTC medicines: interviews with 515 users of herbal remedies

Barnes J¹, Mills SY², Abbot NC¹, Willoughby M², Ernst E¹

¹Dept of Complementary Medicine, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Exeter, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter, EX2 4NT, UK

²Centre for Complementary Health Studies, Streatham Court, University of Exeter, UK

Objective

To determine whether adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to herbal remedies would be reported differently than similar ADRs to conventional OTC medicines.

Materials and methods

Face-to-face interviews with 515 users of herbal remedies, 6 pharmacies and 6 health food stores in the UK.

Results

Following a serious suspected ADR, 156 respondents (30.3%) would consult their GP irrespective of whether the ADR was associated with the use of a herbal remedy or a conventional OTC medicine; 221 respondents (42.9%) would not consult their GP for a serious ADR associated with either type of preparation. A greater proportion of respondents (134; 26.0%) would consult their GP for a serious ADR to a conventional OTC medicine, but not for a similar ADR to a herbal remedy, than would do the opposite, i.e. consult their GP for a suspected ADR to a herbal remedy, but not for a similar ADR to a conventional OTC medicine (4 respondents; 0.8%). Similar differences were found in attitudes towards reporting minor suspected ADRs.

Conclusion

Consumers of herbal remedies would act differently with regard to reporting an ADR (serious or minor) to their GP depending on whether it was associated with a herbal remedy or a conventional OTC medicine.

Top | Next: Sinupret in pregnancy - a retrospective study of 1000 cases: preliminary results»