School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 8th Floor, Lo Kwee-Seong Integrated Biomedical Sciences Building, Area 39, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong.
School of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chung Chi College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Room 101, Li Wai Chun Building, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong.
Phytomedicine. 2022 Aug;103:154247. doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2022.154247. Epub 2022 Jun 7.
The concurrent use of conventional drugs and herbal medicines is becoming popular among patients with cancer. However, the potential risk of herb-drug interactions (HDI) remains under-addressed in the literature. Previous reviews have mainly focused on the prevalence of interactions, with less attention paid to the methods used by pharmacoepidemiological studies on evaluating HDI. This scoping review aims to summarize the existing pharmacoepidemiological studies that evaluate HDI using real-world data and to identify gaps to be addressed in future research.
A comprehensive search was performed in nine English- and Chinese-language databases from their inception to May 2021. Gray literature and manual searches were conducted to identify additional studies. The recommended components of the pharmacoepidemiological studies and key findings related to HDI were summarized. The proportion (%) of patients with cancer at risk of HDI was estimated by combining data from eligible studies.
Twenty-eight studies were included in the review. More than half of these studies were cross-sectional studies (n = 18, 64.3%), followed by retrospective cohort studies (n = 5, 17.9%) and prospective cohort studies (n = 2, 7.1%). The three cancer drugs most commonly studied for their interaction potential with herbs were tamoxifen (n = 11, 39.3%), cyclophosphamide (n = 6, 21.4%), and paclitaxel (n = 6, 21.4%). Most cross-sectional studies identified potential HDI using tertiary databases and primary literature searches. Conversely, prospective and retrospective studies mainly investigated actual clinical outcomes, such as adverse events and secondary cancer occurrences. Most interaction outcomes identified using real-world data did not lead to negative clinical consequences. Collectively, 45.4% of herbal medicine users of the included studies were found to be at risk of HDI. We infer from this review that the common limitations of these studies were limited sample size, lack of data on herbal medicine use and details of HDI, and lack of evidence of HDI. Based on the study limitations, several recommendations to enrich the data sources and optimize the study designs were proposed.
There is a high demand for pharmacoepidemiological research on HDI, considering the increasing popularity of herbal medicine among patients with cancer. It is anticipated that emerging real-world data in this field can guide the development of safe and effective approaches to integrative oncology.
在癌症患者中,同时使用常规药物和草药越来越流行。然而,草药-药物相互作用(HDI)的潜在风险在文献中仍未得到充分关注。以前的综述主要集中在相互作用的流行程度上,而较少关注药物流行病学研究评估 HDI 所使用的方法。本范围综述旨在总结使用真实世界数据评估 HDI 的现有药物流行病学研究,并确定未来研究中需要解决的差距。
从成立到 2021 年 5 月,我们在九个英文和中文数据库中进行了全面搜索。还进行了灰色文献和手动搜索以确定其他研究。总结了药物流行病学研究的建议组成部分和与 HDI 相关的关键发现。通过合并合格研究的数据,估计了有 HDI 风险的癌症患者的比例(%)。
本综述共纳入 28 项研究。其中一半以上为横断面研究(n = 18,64.3%),其次为回顾性队列研究(n = 5,17.9%)和前瞻性队列研究(n = 2,7.1%)。研究相互作用潜力的三种最常见的癌症药物是他莫昔芬(n = 11,39.3%)、环磷酰胺(n = 6,21.4%)和紫杉醇(n = 6,21.4%)。大多数横断面研究使用三级数据库和原始文献检索来识别潜在的 HDI。相反,前瞻性和回顾性研究主要调查了实际的临床结果,如不良事件和继发性癌症发生。使用真实世界数据识别的大多数相互作用结果并未导致不良的临床后果。总体而言,纳入研究中 45.4%的草药使用者有发生 HDI 的风险。我们从本综述中推断,这些研究的常见局限性是样本量有限、缺乏草药使用和 HDI 详细信息的数据以及缺乏 HDI 的证据。根据研究局限性,提出了一些丰富数据源和优化研究设计的建议。
鉴于癌症患者中对草药的使用越来越流行,对 HDI 的药物流行病学研究有很高的需求。预计该领域新兴的真实世界数据将指导安全有效的综合肿瘤学方法的发展。