The Evidence for Herbal and Botanical Remedies, Part 2

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/02/2018 - 10:23
Display Headline
The Evidence for Herbal and Botanical Remedies, Part 2

More than a third of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 Unfortunately, the public’s enthusiasm for herbal products is not always consistent with the scientific evidence supporting their use. In part one of this series, we discussed the studies that have been done on capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint. In this installment, we outline the research on 5 additional remedies: turmeric/curcumin, which may be of benefit in ulcerative colitis; chamomile, which appears to offer relief to patients with anxiety; rosemary, which may help treat alopecia; as well as coffee and cocoa, which may have some cardiovascular benefits (TABLE).

Turmeric/curcumin

Overview

Turmeric (Curcuma longa), a relative of ginger, has been used for 4000 years to treat a variety of conditions.2,3 Curcumin is the yellow pigment isolated from the rhizomes of Curcuma longa, commonly known as turmeric.3 Turmeric powder contains 5% curcumin, which is the main biologically active compound. Although it grows in many tropical locations, most turmeric is grown in India, where it is used as a main ingredient in curry. The roots and bulbs of turmeric that are used in medicine are generally boiled and dried, which results in a yellow powder.

Turmeric has been used in both Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine for its anti-inflammatory properties, in the treatment of digestive and liver problems, to fight infections, and to help heal skin diseases and wounds.3-7

Functional GI disorders. A recent review noted that curcumin has been shown in several preclinical studies and uncontrolled clinical trials to have effects on gut inflammation, gut permeability, and the brain-gut axis, especially in functional GI disorders.7 A double-blind, placebo-controlled study from 1989 found that turmeric reduced symptoms of bloating and gas in subjects suffering from undifferentiated dyspepsia.8

Ulcerative colitis (UC). A 2012 Cochrane review noted that curcumin appears to be a safe and effective therapy for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC when given as adjunctive therapy along with mesalamine or sulfasalazine.9 In a 2015 randomized controlled trial (RCT), the addition of curcumin to mesalamine therapy was superior to the combination of placebo and mesalamine in inducing clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with mild-to-moderate active UC, producing no apparent adverse effects.10

Osteoarthritis (OA). Because of turmeric’s ability to reduce inflammation, it may help relieve OA pain.3 Clinical evidence is scant for the anti-arthritic efficacy of turmeric dietary supplements, although animal studies indicate that turmeric prevents inflammation through regulation of NF-kappaB-regulated genes that regulate the immune and inflammatory response.6 Inflammatory cell influx, joint levels of prostaglandin E2, and periarticular osteoclast formation were also inhibited by turmeric extract treatment.6

A 2013 review of turmeric for OA concluded that observational studies and in vitro results are promising for the use of curcumin for OA, but well-designed clinical studies were lacking and are needed to support the efficacy of curcumin in OA patients.11 How­ever, in a 2014 randomized trial of 367 patients, turmeric appeared to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen for the treatment of pain and disability in adults with knee OA.12 The curcumin (turmeric) group also had fewer adverse effects.12

Cancer. There has been a great deal of research on turmeric’s anti-cancer properties, but clinical evidence is lacking. In vitro evidence, animal studies, and small clinical trials suggest that curcumin may help prevent or treat several types of cancers, but the overall evidence is poor. Nonetheless, curcumin and turmeric have been or are currently being evaluated for the treatment or prevention of prostate, liver, breast, skin, gynecologic, hematologic, pulmonary, thymic, bone, brain, and colon cancer.13-18

Oral submucous fibrosis. A small randomized trial found improvement in oral function with curcumin lozenges, when compared to placebo, indicating that turmeric may hold promise as a treatment of oral submucous fibrosis.19

Uveitis. A small pilot study of 32 patients suggested that oral curcumin may be as effective as corticosteroids for uveitis.20

Heart disease. Curcumin may have a cardiovascular protective role, as it has been shown to reduce atherosclerosis, but a reduction in myocardial infarction or stroke has not been documented.21

Alzheimer’s dementia. Animal studies have shown a reduction in amyloid plaque formation with curcumin.22

Adverse effects (and precautions)

Turmeric in food is considered safe. A variety of animal and human studies have also indicated that curcumin is safe and well tolerated, even at very high doses.13 However, taking large amounts of turmeric for long periods of time could cause stomach upset and gastric ulcers. In addition, patients with gallstones or bile obstruction should use it with caution due to increased bile production.7

Because turmeric may lower blood sugar levels, patients with diabetes should monitor for hypoglycemia when using turmeric in combination with diabetic medications. Similarly, those with bleeding disorders taking blood thinners should use turmeric and curcumin with caution, because it can inhibit platelet aggregation.23

Although it is safe to eat foods with turmeric during pregnancy, pregnant and breastfeeding women should not take turmeric supplements, as the safety of large doses in pregnancy is unknown.

The bottom line

Turmeric/curcumin has anti-inflammatory properties and may be useful as an adjunct for ulcerative colitis and to improve the symptoms of OA. It may also have anti-carcinogenic properties, although definitive data are lacking. Those with a history of gastrointestinal conditions such as gastric ulcer, patients taking blood thinners, and patients with diabetes who are prone to low blood sugar levels should use turmeric/curcumin with caution.

 

 

Chamomile

Overview

Chamomile, a member of the Asteraceae/Compositae family, is one of the oldest herbal medicines. It has been used for hay fever, inflammation, muscle spasms, menstrual disorders, insomnia, ulcers, wounds, gastrointestinal disorders, rheumatic pain, and hemorrhoids. Essential oils of chamomile are used extensively in cosmetics and aromatherapy. Many different preparations have been developed, the most popular being herbal tea.24

A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder.

Individuals with a hypersensitivity to plants of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family such as ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), marigold flower (Calendula officinalis), and chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum spp.) may show a similar reaction to chamomile.25

Anxiety. A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate GAD.26 Another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found oral chamomile extract was efficacious and well-tolerated in patients experiencing mild to moderate GAD and may provide an alternative therapeutic anxiolytic for patients with mild GAD.25 In addition to its anxiolytic activity, chamomile may also provide clinically meaningful antidepressant activity.26

Insomnia. Chamomile may have some impact on sleep diary measures (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, and number of awakenings) relative to placebo in adults with chronic primary insomnia, according to a small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial involving 34 patients.27 However, a systematic review found no statistically significant difference between any herbal medicine (including chamomile) and placebo, for clinical efficacy in patients with insomnia. A similar, or smaller, number of adverse events per person were reported with chamomile compared with placebo, suggesting safe use.28

Infantile colic. A small prospective double-blind study on the use of chamomile-containing tea on infantile colic showed statistically significant symptom improvement in tea-treated infants. The study did note, however, that prolonged ingestion of herbal teas may lead to decreased milk intake.29,30

Adverse effects

As noted earlier, a systematic review found that the number of adverse events per person reported with chamomile was comparable to the number associated with placebo, suggesting that it is safe.28

The bottom line

Chamomile appears to be safe with minimal adverse effects and may be effective for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and infantile colic.

Rosemary

Overview

Rosemary, officially known as Rosmarinus officinalis, is a medicinal evergreen plant native to the Mediterranean area that appears to increase microcapillary perfusion.31

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia, with minimal adverse effects.

Alopecia. A randomized double-blind controlled trial found that essential oils including rosemary oil (as well as thyme, lavender, and cedarwood) massaged into the scalp improved hair growth in almost half of patients with alopecia areata after 7 months.32 Another randomized trial comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2% for androgenetic alopecia showed a significant increase in hair count at the 6-month endpoint compared with the baseline, but no significant difference was found between the study groups regarding hair count either at Month 3 or Month 6 (P >.05). 31

Adverse effects

In the randomized trial described above comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2%, adverse effects appeared to be rare for topical rosemary oil. Scalp itching was more frequent in the minoxidil group.31

The bottom line

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia with minimal adverse effects.

 

 

Coffee/caffeine

Overview

Coffee is one of the most widely used botanicals with approximately 3.5 billion cups of coffee consumed per day worldwide. It is a popular beverage because of its unique aromatic taste and its use as a central nervous system stimulant. The coffee tree (genus coffea) is found throughout Latin America, Africa, and eastern Asia. Two of the most common commercially grown species are Coffea arabica (Arabicas) and Coffea canephora (Robusta). Processing and roasting methods may differ and produce variations in flavor and aroma. The degree of roasting also affects the caffeine content.

Coffee consumption leads to increased alertness and can boost mental performance. Based on the literature and US Food and Drug Administration recommendations, four 8-oz cups of coffee (about 400 mg of caffeine) daily is an acceptable average amount of caffeine. More than 500 mg/d is considered excessive use of coffee.33,34

Overall mortality. A 2008 study showed that regular coffee was not associated with increased or decreased mortality in both men and women.35 However, more recent studies show an inverse relationship between mortality and coffee consumption.

Specifically, a 2014 meta-analysis found an inverse relationship between coffee and mortality.36 A large prospective cohort study from 2015 that included 79,234 women and 76,704 men found that drinking coffee was inversely associated with overall mortality.37 In this cohort study, an inverse association were observed for deaths from heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and self-harm.37 While mechanisms were not analyzed, coffee may reduce mortality risk by affecting inflammation, lung function, insulin sensitivity, and depression.

Cardiovascular disease. Coffee consumption may modestly reduce the risk of stroke, according to a prospective cohort study of 83,076 women from the Nurses’ Health Study who were followed for 24 years.38 Reduced cardiovascular mortality was also found in a large prospective cohort study, as noted in the mortality discussion above.37 A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that coffee consumption is inversely associated with cardiovascular mortality. Drinking 3 or 4 cups a day appears to be the amount that may decrease one’s risk of death when compared to those who do not drink coffee at all.36

Liver disease. Friedrich et al performed a study involving 379 patients with end stage liver disease, and found that coffee consumption delayed the progression of disease in patients with both alcoholic liver disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis.39 Coffee consumption also increased long-term survival after liver transplantation.39 However, the study found that coffee did not have any effect on patients with chronic viral hepatitis.

In a 2016 meta-analysis, caffeinated coffee consumption reduced hepatic fibrosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, although caffeine consumption did not reduce the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.40 Another meta-analysis, including 16 studies, also found caffeine reduced the risk for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.41

Depression. Based on 2 different systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2016, coffee consumption appears to have a significant protective effect, decreasing the risk of developing depression.40,42

Alzheimer’s disease/dementia. Coffee, tea, and caffeine consumption show promise in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Individuals who consume one to 2 cups of coffee per day had a decreased incidence of mild cognitive impairment compared to non-drinkers.43 A 2015 Japanese study also found an inverse association between coffee consumption and dementia among women, nonsmokers, and those who do not drink alcohol.44 Most recently, a 2016 study, the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, looked at incident dementia rates in women >65 years of age with high vs low caffeine intake. Women with higher caffeine intake were less likely to develop dementia or any cognitive impairment compared with those consuming <64 mg/day.45

Type 2 diabetes. A 2009 prospective cohort study, which included 40,011 participants followed for more than 10 years, found that drinking at least 3 cups of coffee or tea was associated with a lowered risk of type 2 diabetes.46 A 2009 systematic review of 20 cohort studies showed that high intakes of coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea are associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.47

A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants found an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.

Melanoma. A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants demon­strated an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.47 The risk of melanoma decreased by 3% and 4% for one cup/day of total coffee and caffeinated coffee consumption, respectively. Furthermore, a 2016 meta-analysis found that caffeinated coffee may have greater chemopreventive effects against melanoma than decaffeinated coffee.48

Adverse effects

Despite the many potential benefits of coffee, caffeine is a potent drug that should be used with caution.49 People with underlying heart problems should avoid caffeine due to concern that it may cause palpitations from tachycardia. It may worsen anxiety problems or depression. Coffee may increase the production of stomach acids, which can worsen acid reflux or stomach ulcers.

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced CV events, and a reduction in liver disease progression.

Caffeine is a potent diuretic and may decrease absorption of calcium and cause OA. Caffeine may cause dependence and withdrawal symptoms. Some of the symptoms of withdrawal include drowsiness, headaches, irritability, nausea, and vomiting. It may disrupt sleeping patterns by causing jitters and sleeplessness.49 Additionally, large amounts of caffeine may cause overdose and death.

The bottom line

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced cardiovascular events, and a reduction in liver disease progression. Coffee may also have some utility for improving cognitive function and reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Caffeinated coffee should be limited to no more than 32 oz per day, due to the risk of insomnia, palpitations, anxiety, and gastritis.

 

 

Chocolate/cocoa

Overview

Few natural products have been claimed to successfully treat as many disorders as chocolate. The modern concept of chocolate as food has overshadowed its traditional medicinal use, although recent trials have looked at evidence for some of its traditional uses. Chocolate is processed from the pod of the cacao plant. The earliest evidence for its medical use is in Mayan civilizations, and for most of its approximately 4000-year history, chocolate was consumed as a bitter drink referred to as the “drink of the Gods.” The traditional drink was mixed with water, vanilla, honey, chili peppers, and other spices. Important components in chocolate include flavonoids (antioxidants), cocoa butter, caffeine, theobromine, and phenylethylamine.  

Chocolate has stimulating, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and cardioprotective effects, and improves the bioavailability of nitric oxide, which can improve blood pressure and platelet function.50 Epicatechin (an antioxidant) in cocoa is primarily responsible for its favorable impact on vascular endothelium via its effect on both acute and chronic upregulation of nitric oxide production. Other cardiovascular effects are mediated by the anti-inflammatory effects of cocoa polyphenols, and modulated through the activity of NF-kappaB.51

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.

Dark chocolate appears to have the greatest benefit, as milk binds to antioxidants in chocolate, making them unavailable. Therefore, milk chocolate is not a good antioxidant source. There is no specific amount of chocolate that is known to be ideal, but an average of one to 2 ounces per day is often used in studies.

Cardiovascular effects. Chocolate does contain saturated fat, but a comparative, double-blind study found that short-term use of cocoa powder lowered plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, oxidized LDL, and apo B concentrations, and the plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentration increased, relative to baseline in the low-, middle-, and high-cocoa groups.52 A small randomized crossover trial without clinical outcomes indicated that chocolate may increase HDL cholesterol without increasing weight.53

A meta-analysis of short-term (2-12 weeks) treatment with dark chocolate/cocoa products showed reductions in LDL and total cholesterol, but no changes in HDL or triglycerides.54 Another meta-analysis of RCTs, however, showed no short-term effect of cocoa/chocolate on lipid concentrations.55 A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study of 62 patients with diabetes and hypertension showed that high polyphenol chocolate improved triglyceride levels.56

Chocolate intake was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline, with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar per week.

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.57-59 A best case scenario analysis using a Markov model to predict the long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of daily dark chocolate consumption in a population with metabolic syndrome at high risk of cardiovascular disease concluded that daily consumption of dark chocolate can reduce cardiovascular events by 85 per 10,000 population treated over 10 years. The study concluded that $42 could be cost effectively spent per person per year on prevention strategies using dark chocolate.59

In addition, a meta-analysis of 7 observational studies showed that high levels of chocolate consumption (any type) were associated with a 29% reduction in stroke compared with the lowest levels of chocolate intake.57 Results of a similar meta-analysis from Neurology in 2012 also suggested that moderate chocolate consumption (any type) may lower the risk of stroke.60

That said, 2 systematic reviews specifically relating to the risk of coronary heart disease and chocolate intake were inconclusive.61-62

Blood pressure (BP). An RCT published in JAMA indicates that inclusion of small amounts of polyphenol-rich dark chocolate as part of a usual diet efficiently reduced BP and improved the formation of vasodilative nitric oxide.63 A meta-analysis of 10 RCTs also showed mean BP change in the active cocoa treatment arms across all trials was -4.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), -5.9 to -3.2; P<.001) for systolic BP and -2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.9 to -1.2; P<.001) for diastolic BP.64

A Cochrane Review meta-analysis of 20 studies revealed a statistically significant BP-reducing effect of flavanol-rich cocoa products compared with control in short-term trials of 2 to 18 weeks' duration.65 Because studies have shown improvement in BP with chocolate intake, investigations into a role of chocolate in the prevention of preeclampsia have been undertaken. In some studies, chocolate intake was associated with reduced odds of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.66,67

Diabetes. Chocolate may exert significant vascular protection because of its antioxidant properties and possible increase of nitric oxide bioavailability, which can influence glucose uptake. A small trial comparing the effects of either dark or white chocolate bars (which do not contain the polyphenols) showed improved BP and glucose and insulin responses to an oral glucose tolerance test in healthy subjects on dark chocolate, but not white chocolate.68 A comparison of chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes in the Physicians’ Health Study showed an inverse relationship between chocolate intake with incident disease, but this association appeared only to apply in younger and normal-body weight men after controlling for comprehensive lifestyles, including total energy consumption.69

Fatigue. The effect of chocolate on a person’s energy level has been noted for centuries.70 A small randomized trial showed improved energy levels in those treated with higher chocolate intakes. In a double-blind, randomized, clinical pilot crossover study, high cocoa liquor/polyphenol rich chocolate, reduced fatigue in subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome.71

Anxiety. A small randomized trial showed chocolate decreased anxiety in high-anxiety trait subjects and improved the anxiety level and the energy levels of low-anxiety trait participants.72

Eye effects. The literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the effect of flavonoids on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. However, a meta-analysis showed that flavonoids have a promising role in improving visual function in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and appear to play a part in both improving and slowing the progression of visual field loss.73

Cognitive decline. Chocolate intake (any type) was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92) with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar or one tablespoon of cocoa powder per week. This protective effect was observed only among subjects with an average daily consumption of caffeine <75  mg (69% of the participants; RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82).74

The bottom line

Chocolate with high cocoa content (dark chocolate) appears to be safe and beneficial as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle that includes exercise and stress reduction to decrease cardiovascular risk and may improve energy levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed Nov 28, 2017.
2. Aggarwal BB. Curcumin-free turmeric exhibits anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities: identification of novel components of turmeric. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57:1529-1542.
3. Henrotin Y, Clutterbuck AL, Allaway D, et al. Biological actions of curcumin on articular chondrocytes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18:141-149.
4. Asher GN, Spelman K. Clinical utility of curcumin extract. Altern Ther Health Med. 2013;19:20-22.
5. Phan TT, See P, Lee ST, et al. Protective effects of curcumin against oxidative damage on skin cells in vitro: its implication for wound healing. J Trauma. 2001;51:927-931.
6. Funk JL, Frye JB, Oyarzo JN, et al. Efficacy and mechanism of action of turmeric supplements in the treatment of experimental arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3452-3464.
7. Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Chili peppers, curcumins, and prebiotics in gastrointestinal health and disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18:19.
8. Thamlikitkul V, Bunyapraphatsara N, Dechatiwongse T, et al. Randomized double blind study of Curcuma domestica Val. for dyspepsia. J Med Assoc Thai. 1989;72:613-620.
9. Kumar S, Ahuja V, Sankar MJ, et al. Curcumin for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD008424.
10. Lang A, Salomon N, Wu JC, et al. Curcumin in combination with mesalamine induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1444-1449.e1.
11. Henrotin Y, Priem F, Mobasheri A. Curcumin: a new paradigm and therapeutic opportunity for the treatment of osteoarthritis: curcumin for osteoarthritis management. Springerplus. 2013;2:56.
12. Kuptniratsaikul V, Dajpratham P, Taechaarpornkul W, et al. Efficacy and safety of Curcuma domestica extracts compared with ibuprofen in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:451-458.
13. Shehzad A, Lee J, Lee YS. Curcumin in various cancers. Biofactors. 2013;39:56-68.
14. Sordillo LA, Sordillo PP, Helson L. Curcumin for the treatment of glioblastoma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:6373-6378.
15. Darvesh AS, Aggarwal BB, Bishayee A. Curcumin and liver cancer: a review. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2012;13:218-228.
16. Nagaraju GP, Aliya S, Zafar SF, et al. The impact of curcumin on breast cancer. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012;4:996-1007.
17. Johnson JJ, Mukhtar H. Curcumin for chemoprevention of colon cancer. Cancer Lett. 2007;255:170-181.
18. Dorai T, Cao YC, Dorai B, et al. Therapeutic potential of curcumin in human prostate cancer. III. Curcumin inhibits proliferation, induces apoptosis, and inhibits angiogenesis of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in vivo. Prostate. 2001;47:293-303.
19. Hazarey VK, Sakrikar AR, Ganvir SM. Efficacy of curcumin in the treatment for oral submucous fibrosis - a randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2015;19:145-152.
20. Lal B, Kapoor AK, Asthana OP, et al. Efficacy of curcumin in the management of chronic anterior uveitis. Phytother Res. 1999;13:318-322.
21. Kapakos G, Youreva V, Srivastava AK. Cardiovascular protection by curcumin: molecular aspects. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2012;49:306-315.
22. Yang F, Lim GP, Begum AN, et al. Curcumin inhibits formation of amyloid beta oligomers and fibrils, binds plaques, and reduces amyloid in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:5892-5901.
23. Heck AM, DeWitt BA, Lukes AL. Potential interactions between alternative therapies and warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57:1221-1227.
24. Srivastava JK, Shankar E, Gupta S. Chamomile: a herbal medicine of the past with bright future. Mol Med Rep. 2010;3:895-901.
25. Ross SM. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): efficacy of standardized matricaria recutita (german chamomile) extract in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Holistic Nursing Practice. 2013;27:366- 368.
26. Amsterdam JD, Li Y, Soeller I, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:378-382.
27. Zick SM, Wright BD, Sen A, et al. Preliminary examination of the efficacy and safety of a standardized chamomile extract for chronic primary insomnia: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011;11:78.
28. Leach MJ, Page AT. Herbal medicine for insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2015;24:1-12.
29. Weizman Z, Alkrinawi S, Goldfarb D, et al. Efficacy of herbal tea preparation in infantile colic. J Pediatr. 1993;122:650.
30. Crotteau CA, Wright ST, Eglash A. Clinical inquiries. What is the best treatment for infants with colic? J Fam Pract. 2006;55:634-636.
31. Panahi Y, Taghizadeh M, Marzony ET, et al. Rosemary oil vs minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a randomized comparative trial. Skinmed. 2015;13:15-21.
32. Hay IC, Jamieson M, Ormerod AD. Randomized trial of aromatherapy. Successful treatment for alopecia areata. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1349-1352.
33. Caffeine and kids: FDA takes a closer look. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm350570.htm. Accessed: November 1, 2017.
34. Torpy JM, Livingston EH. Energy Drinks. JAMA. 2013;309:297.
35. Lopez-Garcia E, van Dam RM, Li TY, et al. The relationship of coffee consumption with mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:904-914.
36. Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, et al. Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180:763-775.
37. Loftfield E, Freedman ND, Graubard BI, et al. Association of coffee consumption with overall and cause-specific mortality in a large US prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182:1010-1022.
38. Lopez-Garcia E, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Rexrode KM, et al. Coffee consumption and risk of stroke in women. Circulation. 2009;119:1116-1123.
39. Friedrich K, Smit M, Wannhoff A, et al. Coffee consumption protects against progression in liver cirrhosis and increases long-term survival after liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1470-1475.
40. Wang L, Shen X, Wu Y, et al. Coffee and caffeine consumption and depression: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50:228-242.
41. Liu F, Wang X, Wu G, et al. Coffee consumption decreases risks for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142457.
42. Grosso G, Micek A, Castellano S, et al. Coffee, tea, caffeine and risk of depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016;60:223-234.
43. Solfrizzi V, Panza F, Imbimbo BP, et al. Italian longitudinal study on aging working group. Coffee consumption habits and the risk of mild cognitive impairment: The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47:889-899.
44. Sugiyama K, Tomata Y, Kaiho Y, et al. Association between coffee consumption and incident risk of disabling dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;50:491-500.
45. Driscoll I, Shumaker SA, Snively BM, et al. Relationships between caffeine intake and risk for probable dementia or global cognitive impairment: The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71:1596-1602.
46. van Dieren S, Uiterwaal CS, van der Schouw YT, et al. Coffee and tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2009;52:2561-2569.
47. Wang J, Li X, Zhang D. Coffee consumption and the risk of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55:1317-1329.
48. Liu J, Shen B, Shi M, et al. Higher caffeinated coffee intake is associated with reduced malignant melanoma risk: a meta-analysis study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147056.
49. Wikoff D, Welsh BT, Henderson R, et al. Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. Food Chem Toxical. 2017;109(Pt 1):585-648.
50. Verna R. The history and science of chocolate. Malays J Pathol. 2013;35:111-121.
51. Katz DL, Doughty K, Ali A. Cocoa and chocolate in human health and disease. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011;15:2779-2811. 

52. Baba S, Natsume M, Yasuda A, et al. Plasma LDL and HDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL concentrations are altered in normo- and hypercholesterolemic humans after intake of different levels of cocoa powder. J Nutr. 2007;137:1436-1441.
53. Mellor DD, Sathyapalan T, Kilpatrick ES, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves HDL cholesterol in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabet Med. 2010;27:1318-1321.
54. Tokede OA, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Effects of cocoa products/dark chocolate on serum lipids: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65:879-886.
55. Jia L, Liu X, Bai YY, et al. Short-term effect of cocoa product consumption on lipid profile: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:218-225.
56. Rostami A, Khalili M, Haghighat N, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves blood pressure in patients with diabetes and hypertension. ARYA Atheroscler. 2015;11:21-29.
57. Buitrago-Lopez A, Sanderson J, Johnson L, et al. Chocolate consumption and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;26;343:d4488.
58. Wang X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, et al. Flavonoid intake and risk of CVD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;111:1-11.
59. Zomer E, Owen A, Magliano DJ, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dark chocolate consumption as prevention therapy in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: best case scenario analysis using a Markov model. BMJ. 2012;344:e3657.
60. Larsson SC, Virtamo J, Wolk A. Chocolate consumption and risk of stroke: a prospective cohort of men and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2012;79:1223-1229.
61. Khawaja O, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Chocolate and coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2011;13:447-452.
62. Jacques PF, Cassidy A, Rogers G, et al. Dietary flavonoid intakes and CVD incidence in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. Br J Nutr. 2015;114:1496-1503.
63. Taubert D, Roesen R, Lehmann C, et al. Effects of low habitual cocoa intake on blood pressure and bioactive nitric oxide: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298:49-60.
64. Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, et al. Effect of cocoa products on blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:97-103.
65. Ried K, Sullivan TR, Fakler P, et al. Effect of cocoa on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008893.
66. Saftlas AF, Triche EW, Beydoun H, et al. Does chocolate intake during pregnancy reduce the risks of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension? Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20:584-591.
67. Triche EW, Grosso LM, Belanger K, et al. Chocolate consumption in pregnancy and reduced likelihood of preeclampsia. Epidemiology. 2008;19:459-464.
68. Grassi D, Lippi C, Necozione S, et al. Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:611-614.
69. Matsumoto C, Petrone AB, Sesso HD, et al. Chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes mellitus in the Physicians’ Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:362-367.
70. Lippi D. Chocolate in history: food, medicine, medi-food. Nutrients. 2013;5:1573-1584.
71. Sathyapalan T, Beckett S, Rigby AS, et al. High cocoa polyphenol rich chocolate may reduce the burden of the symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome. Nutr J. 2010;9:55.
72. Martin FP, Antille N, Rezzi S, et al. Everyday eating experiences of chocolate and non-chocolate snacks impact postprandial anxiety, energy and emotional states. Nutrients. 2012;4:554-567.
73. Patel S, Mathan JJ, Vaghefi E, et al. The effect of flavonoids on visual function in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:1841-1850.
74. Moreira A, Diógenes MJ, de Mendonça A, et al. Chocolate consumption is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;53:85-93.

Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 28(6)
Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

More than a third of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 Unfortunately, the public’s enthusiasm for herbal products is not always consistent with the scientific evidence supporting their use. In part one of this series, we discussed the studies that have been done on capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint. In this installment, we outline the research on 5 additional remedies: turmeric/curcumin, which may be of benefit in ulcerative colitis; chamomile, which appears to offer relief to patients with anxiety; rosemary, which may help treat alopecia; as well as coffee and cocoa, which may have some cardiovascular benefits (TABLE).

Turmeric/curcumin

Overview

Turmeric (Curcuma longa), a relative of ginger, has been used for 4000 years to treat a variety of conditions.2,3 Curcumin is the yellow pigment isolated from the rhizomes of Curcuma longa, commonly known as turmeric.3 Turmeric powder contains 5% curcumin, which is the main biologically active compound. Although it grows in many tropical locations, most turmeric is grown in India, where it is used as a main ingredient in curry. The roots and bulbs of turmeric that are used in medicine are generally boiled and dried, which results in a yellow powder.

Turmeric has been used in both Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine for its anti-inflammatory properties, in the treatment of digestive and liver problems, to fight infections, and to help heal skin diseases and wounds.3-7

Functional GI disorders. A recent review noted that curcumin has been shown in several preclinical studies and uncontrolled clinical trials to have effects on gut inflammation, gut permeability, and the brain-gut axis, especially in functional GI disorders.7 A double-blind, placebo-controlled study from 1989 found that turmeric reduced symptoms of bloating and gas in subjects suffering from undifferentiated dyspepsia.8

Ulcerative colitis (UC). A 2012 Cochrane review noted that curcumin appears to be a safe and effective therapy for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC when given as adjunctive therapy along with mesalamine or sulfasalazine.9 In a 2015 randomized controlled trial (RCT), the addition of curcumin to mesalamine therapy was superior to the combination of placebo and mesalamine in inducing clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with mild-to-moderate active UC, producing no apparent adverse effects.10

Osteoarthritis (OA). Because of turmeric’s ability to reduce inflammation, it may help relieve OA pain.3 Clinical evidence is scant for the anti-arthritic efficacy of turmeric dietary supplements, although animal studies indicate that turmeric prevents inflammation through regulation of NF-kappaB-regulated genes that regulate the immune and inflammatory response.6 Inflammatory cell influx, joint levels of prostaglandin E2, and periarticular osteoclast formation were also inhibited by turmeric extract treatment.6

A 2013 review of turmeric for OA concluded that observational studies and in vitro results are promising for the use of curcumin for OA, but well-designed clinical studies were lacking and are needed to support the efficacy of curcumin in OA patients.11 How­ever, in a 2014 randomized trial of 367 patients, turmeric appeared to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen for the treatment of pain and disability in adults with knee OA.12 The curcumin (turmeric) group also had fewer adverse effects.12

Cancer. There has been a great deal of research on turmeric’s anti-cancer properties, but clinical evidence is lacking. In vitro evidence, animal studies, and small clinical trials suggest that curcumin may help prevent or treat several types of cancers, but the overall evidence is poor. Nonetheless, curcumin and turmeric have been or are currently being evaluated for the treatment or prevention of prostate, liver, breast, skin, gynecologic, hematologic, pulmonary, thymic, bone, brain, and colon cancer.13-18

Oral submucous fibrosis. A small randomized trial found improvement in oral function with curcumin lozenges, when compared to placebo, indicating that turmeric may hold promise as a treatment of oral submucous fibrosis.19

Uveitis. A small pilot study of 32 patients suggested that oral curcumin may be as effective as corticosteroids for uveitis.20

Heart disease. Curcumin may have a cardiovascular protective role, as it has been shown to reduce atherosclerosis, but a reduction in myocardial infarction or stroke has not been documented.21

Alzheimer’s dementia. Animal studies have shown a reduction in amyloid plaque formation with curcumin.22

Adverse effects (and precautions)

Turmeric in food is considered safe. A variety of animal and human studies have also indicated that curcumin is safe and well tolerated, even at very high doses.13 However, taking large amounts of turmeric for long periods of time could cause stomach upset and gastric ulcers. In addition, patients with gallstones or bile obstruction should use it with caution due to increased bile production.7

Because turmeric may lower blood sugar levels, patients with diabetes should monitor for hypoglycemia when using turmeric in combination with diabetic medications. Similarly, those with bleeding disorders taking blood thinners should use turmeric and curcumin with caution, because it can inhibit platelet aggregation.23

Although it is safe to eat foods with turmeric during pregnancy, pregnant and breastfeeding women should not take turmeric supplements, as the safety of large doses in pregnancy is unknown.

The bottom line

Turmeric/curcumin has anti-inflammatory properties and may be useful as an adjunct for ulcerative colitis and to improve the symptoms of OA. It may also have anti-carcinogenic properties, although definitive data are lacking. Those with a history of gastrointestinal conditions such as gastric ulcer, patients taking blood thinners, and patients with diabetes who are prone to low blood sugar levels should use turmeric/curcumin with caution.

 

 

Chamomile

Overview

Chamomile, a member of the Asteraceae/Compositae family, is one of the oldest herbal medicines. It has been used for hay fever, inflammation, muscle spasms, menstrual disorders, insomnia, ulcers, wounds, gastrointestinal disorders, rheumatic pain, and hemorrhoids. Essential oils of chamomile are used extensively in cosmetics and aromatherapy. Many different preparations have been developed, the most popular being herbal tea.24

A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder.

Individuals with a hypersensitivity to plants of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family such as ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), marigold flower (Calendula officinalis), and chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum spp.) may show a similar reaction to chamomile.25

Anxiety. A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate GAD.26 Another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found oral chamomile extract was efficacious and well-tolerated in patients experiencing mild to moderate GAD and may provide an alternative therapeutic anxiolytic for patients with mild GAD.25 In addition to its anxiolytic activity, chamomile may also provide clinically meaningful antidepressant activity.26

Insomnia. Chamomile may have some impact on sleep diary measures (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, and number of awakenings) relative to placebo in adults with chronic primary insomnia, according to a small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial involving 34 patients.27 However, a systematic review found no statistically significant difference between any herbal medicine (including chamomile) and placebo, for clinical efficacy in patients with insomnia. A similar, or smaller, number of adverse events per person were reported with chamomile compared with placebo, suggesting safe use.28

Infantile colic. A small prospective double-blind study on the use of chamomile-containing tea on infantile colic showed statistically significant symptom improvement in tea-treated infants. The study did note, however, that prolonged ingestion of herbal teas may lead to decreased milk intake.29,30

Adverse effects

As noted earlier, a systematic review found that the number of adverse events per person reported with chamomile was comparable to the number associated with placebo, suggesting that it is safe.28

The bottom line

Chamomile appears to be safe with minimal adverse effects and may be effective for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and infantile colic.

Rosemary

Overview

Rosemary, officially known as Rosmarinus officinalis, is a medicinal evergreen plant native to the Mediterranean area that appears to increase microcapillary perfusion.31

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia, with minimal adverse effects.

Alopecia. A randomized double-blind controlled trial found that essential oils including rosemary oil (as well as thyme, lavender, and cedarwood) massaged into the scalp improved hair growth in almost half of patients with alopecia areata after 7 months.32 Another randomized trial comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2% for androgenetic alopecia showed a significant increase in hair count at the 6-month endpoint compared with the baseline, but no significant difference was found between the study groups regarding hair count either at Month 3 or Month 6 (P >.05). 31

Adverse effects

In the randomized trial described above comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2%, adverse effects appeared to be rare for topical rosemary oil. Scalp itching was more frequent in the minoxidil group.31

The bottom line

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia with minimal adverse effects.

 

 

Coffee/caffeine

Overview

Coffee is one of the most widely used botanicals with approximately 3.5 billion cups of coffee consumed per day worldwide. It is a popular beverage because of its unique aromatic taste and its use as a central nervous system stimulant. The coffee tree (genus coffea) is found throughout Latin America, Africa, and eastern Asia. Two of the most common commercially grown species are Coffea arabica (Arabicas) and Coffea canephora (Robusta). Processing and roasting methods may differ and produce variations in flavor and aroma. The degree of roasting also affects the caffeine content.

Coffee consumption leads to increased alertness and can boost mental performance. Based on the literature and US Food and Drug Administration recommendations, four 8-oz cups of coffee (about 400 mg of caffeine) daily is an acceptable average amount of caffeine. More than 500 mg/d is considered excessive use of coffee.33,34

Overall mortality. A 2008 study showed that regular coffee was not associated with increased or decreased mortality in both men and women.35 However, more recent studies show an inverse relationship between mortality and coffee consumption.

Specifically, a 2014 meta-analysis found an inverse relationship between coffee and mortality.36 A large prospective cohort study from 2015 that included 79,234 women and 76,704 men found that drinking coffee was inversely associated with overall mortality.37 In this cohort study, an inverse association were observed for deaths from heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and self-harm.37 While mechanisms were not analyzed, coffee may reduce mortality risk by affecting inflammation, lung function, insulin sensitivity, and depression.

Cardiovascular disease. Coffee consumption may modestly reduce the risk of stroke, according to a prospective cohort study of 83,076 women from the Nurses’ Health Study who were followed for 24 years.38 Reduced cardiovascular mortality was also found in a large prospective cohort study, as noted in the mortality discussion above.37 A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that coffee consumption is inversely associated with cardiovascular mortality. Drinking 3 or 4 cups a day appears to be the amount that may decrease one’s risk of death when compared to those who do not drink coffee at all.36

Liver disease. Friedrich et al performed a study involving 379 patients with end stage liver disease, and found that coffee consumption delayed the progression of disease in patients with both alcoholic liver disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis.39 Coffee consumption also increased long-term survival after liver transplantation.39 However, the study found that coffee did not have any effect on patients with chronic viral hepatitis.

In a 2016 meta-analysis, caffeinated coffee consumption reduced hepatic fibrosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, although caffeine consumption did not reduce the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.40 Another meta-analysis, including 16 studies, also found caffeine reduced the risk for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.41

Depression. Based on 2 different systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2016, coffee consumption appears to have a significant protective effect, decreasing the risk of developing depression.40,42

Alzheimer’s disease/dementia. Coffee, tea, and caffeine consumption show promise in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Individuals who consume one to 2 cups of coffee per day had a decreased incidence of mild cognitive impairment compared to non-drinkers.43 A 2015 Japanese study also found an inverse association between coffee consumption and dementia among women, nonsmokers, and those who do not drink alcohol.44 Most recently, a 2016 study, the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, looked at incident dementia rates in women >65 years of age with high vs low caffeine intake. Women with higher caffeine intake were less likely to develop dementia or any cognitive impairment compared with those consuming <64 mg/day.45

Type 2 diabetes. A 2009 prospective cohort study, which included 40,011 participants followed for more than 10 years, found that drinking at least 3 cups of coffee or tea was associated with a lowered risk of type 2 diabetes.46 A 2009 systematic review of 20 cohort studies showed that high intakes of coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea are associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.47

A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants found an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.

Melanoma. A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants demon­strated an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.47 The risk of melanoma decreased by 3% and 4% for one cup/day of total coffee and caffeinated coffee consumption, respectively. Furthermore, a 2016 meta-analysis found that caffeinated coffee may have greater chemopreventive effects against melanoma than decaffeinated coffee.48

Adverse effects

Despite the many potential benefits of coffee, caffeine is a potent drug that should be used with caution.49 People with underlying heart problems should avoid caffeine due to concern that it may cause palpitations from tachycardia. It may worsen anxiety problems or depression. Coffee may increase the production of stomach acids, which can worsen acid reflux or stomach ulcers.

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced CV events, and a reduction in liver disease progression.

Caffeine is a potent diuretic and may decrease absorption of calcium and cause OA. Caffeine may cause dependence and withdrawal symptoms. Some of the symptoms of withdrawal include drowsiness, headaches, irritability, nausea, and vomiting. It may disrupt sleeping patterns by causing jitters and sleeplessness.49 Additionally, large amounts of caffeine may cause overdose and death.

The bottom line

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced cardiovascular events, and a reduction in liver disease progression. Coffee may also have some utility for improving cognitive function and reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Caffeinated coffee should be limited to no more than 32 oz per day, due to the risk of insomnia, palpitations, anxiety, and gastritis.

 

 

Chocolate/cocoa

Overview

Few natural products have been claimed to successfully treat as many disorders as chocolate. The modern concept of chocolate as food has overshadowed its traditional medicinal use, although recent trials have looked at evidence for some of its traditional uses. Chocolate is processed from the pod of the cacao plant. The earliest evidence for its medical use is in Mayan civilizations, and for most of its approximately 4000-year history, chocolate was consumed as a bitter drink referred to as the “drink of the Gods.” The traditional drink was mixed with water, vanilla, honey, chili peppers, and other spices. Important components in chocolate include flavonoids (antioxidants), cocoa butter, caffeine, theobromine, and phenylethylamine.  

Chocolate has stimulating, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and cardioprotective effects, and improves the bioavailability of nitric oxide, which can improve blood pressure and platelet function.50 Epicatechin (an antioxidant) in cocoa is primarily responsible for its favorable impact on vascular endothelium via its effect on both acute and chronic upregulation of nitric oxide production. Other cardiovascular effects are mediated by the anti-inflammatory effects of cocoa polyphenols, and modulated through the activity of NF-kappaB.51

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.

Dark chocolate appears to have the greatest benefit, as milk binds to antioxidants in chocolate, making them unavailable. Therefore, milk chocolate is not a good antioxidant source. There is no specific amount of chocolate that is known to be ideal, but an average of one to 2 ounces per day is often used in studies.

Cardiovascular effects. Chocolate does contain saturated fat, but a comparative, double-blind study found that short-term use of cocoa powder lowered plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, oxidized LDL, and apo B concentrations, and the plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentration increased, relative to baseline in the low-, middle-, and high-cocoa groups.52 A small randomized crossover trial without clinical outcomes indicated that chocolate may increase HDL cholesterol without increasing weight.53

A meta-analysis of short-term (2-12 weeks) treatment with dark chocolate/cocoa products showed reductions in LDL and total cholesterol, but no changes in HDL or triglycerides.54 Another meta-analysis of RCTs, however, showed no short-term effect of cocoa/chocolate on lipid concentrations.55 A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study of 62 patients with diabetes and hypertension showed that high polyphenol chocolate improved triglyceride levels.56

Chocolate intake was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline, with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar per week.

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.57-59 A best case scenario analysis using a Markov model to predict the long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of daily dark chocolate consumption in a population with metabolic syndrome at high risk of cardiovascular disease concluded that daily consumption of dark chocolate can reduce cardiovascular events by 85 per 10,000 population treated over 10 years. The study concluded that $42 could be cost effectively spent per person per year on prevention strategies using dark chocolate.59

In addition, a meta-analysis of 7 observational studies showed that high levels of chocolate consumption (any type) were associated with a 29% reduction in stroke compared with the lowest levels of chocolate intake.57 Results of a similar meta-analysis from Neurology in 2012 also suggested that moderate chocolate consumption (any type) may lower the risk of stroke.60

That said, 2 systematic reviews specifically relating to the risk of coronary heart disease and chocolate intake were inconclusive.61-62

Blood pressure (BP). An RCT published in JAMA indicates that inclusion of small amounts of polyphenol-rich dark chocolate as part of a usual diet efficiently reduced BP and improved the formation of vasodilative nitric oxide.63 A meta-analysis of 10 RCTs also showed mean BP change in the active cocoa treatment arms across all trials was -4.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), -5.9 to -3.2; P<.001) for systolic BP and -2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.9 to -1.2; P<.001) for diastolic BP.64

A Cochrane Review meta-analysis of 20 studies revealed a statistically significant BP-reducing effect of flavanol-rich cocoa products compared with control in short-term trials of 2 to 18 weeks' duration.65 Because studies have shown improvement in BP with chocolate intake, investigations into a role of chocolate in the prevention of preeclampsia have been undertaken. In some studies, chocolate intake was associated with reduced odds of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.66,67

Diabetes. Chocolate may exert significant vascular protection because of its antioxidant properties and possible increase of nitric oxide bioavailability, which can influence glucose uptake. A small trial comparing the effects of either dark or white chocolate bars (which do not contain the polyphenols) showed improved BP and glucose and insulin responses to an oral glucose tolerance test in healthy subjects on dark chocolate, but not white chocolate.68 A comparison of chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes in the Physicians’ Health Study showed an inverse relationship between chocolate intake with incident disease, but this association appeared only to apply in younger and normal-body weight men after controlling for comprehensive lifestyles, including total energy consumption.69

Fatigue. The effect of chocolate on a person’s energy level has been noted for centuries.70 A small randomized trial showed improved energy levels in those treated with higher chocolate intakes. In a double-blind, randomized, clinical pilot crossover study, high cocoa liquor/polyphenol rich chocolate, reduced fatigue in subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome.71

Anxiety. A small randomized trial showed chocolate decreased anxiety in high-anxiety trait subjects and improved the anxiety level and the energy levels of low-anxiety trait participants.72

Eye effects. The literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the effect of flavonoids on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. However, a meta-analysis showed that flavonoids have a promising role in improving visual function in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and appear to play a part in both improving and slowing the progression of visual field loss.73

Cognitive decline. Chocolate intake (any type) was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92) with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar or one tablespoon of cocoa powder per week. This protective effect was observed only among subjects with an average daily consumption of caffeine <75  mg (69% of the participants; RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82).74

The bottom line

Chocolate with high cocoa content (dark chocolate) appears to be safe and beneficial as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle that includes exercise and stress reduction to decrease cardiovascular risk and may improve energy levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

More than a third of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 Unfortunately, the public’s enthusiasm for herbal products is not always consistent with the scientific evidence supporting their use. In part one of this series, we discussed the studies that have been done on capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint. In this installment, we outline the research on 5 additional remedies: turmeric/curcumin, which may be of benefit in ulcerative colitis; chamomile, which appears to offer relief to patients with anxiety; rosemary, which may help treat alopecia; as well as coffee and cocoa, which may have some cardiovascular benefits (TABLE).

Turmeric/curcumin

Overview

Turmeric (Curcuma longa), a relative of ginger, has been used for 4000 years to treat a variety of conditions.2,3 Curcumin is the yellow pigment isolated from the rhizomes of Curcuma longa, commonly known as turmeric.3 Turmeric powder contains 5% curcumin, which is the main biologically active compound. Although it grows in many tropical locations, most turmeric is grown in India, where it is used as a main ingredient in curry. The roots and bulbs of turmeric that are used in medicine are generally boiled and dried, which results in a yellow powder.

Turmeric has been used in both Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine for its anti-inflammatory properties, in the treatment of digestive and liver problems, to fight infections, and to help heal skin diseases and wounds.3-7

Functional GI disorders. A recent review noted that curcumin has been shown in several preclinical studies and uncontrolled clinical trials to have effects on gut inflammation, gut permeability, and the brain-gut axis, especially in functional GI disorders.7 A double-blind, placebo-controlled study from 1989 found that turmeric reduced symptoms of bloating and gas in subjects suffering from undifferentiated dyspepsia.8

Ulcerative colitis (UC). A 2012 Cochrane review noted that curcumin appears to be a safe and effective therapy for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC when given as adjunctive therapy along with mesalamine or sulfasalazine.9 In a 2015 randomized controlled trial (RCT), the addition of curcumin to mesalamine therapy was superior to the combination of placebo and mesalamine in inducing clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with mild-to-moderate active UC, producing no apparent adverse effects.10

Osteoarthritis (OA). Because of turmeric’s ability to reduce inflammation, it may help relieve OA pain.3 Clinical evidence is scant for the anti-arthritic efficacy of turmeric dietary supplements, although animal studies indicate that turmeric prevents inflammation through regulation of NF-kappaB-regulated genes that regulate the immune and inflammatory response.6 Inflammatory cell influx, joint levels of prostaglandin E2, and periarticular osteoclast formation were also inhibited by turmeric extract treatment.6

A 2013 review of turmeric for OA concluded that observational studies and in vitro results are promising for the use of curcumin for OA, but well-designed clinical studies were lacking and are needed to support the efficacy of curcumin in OA patients.11 How­ever, in a 2014 randomized trial of 367 patients, turmeric appeared to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen for the treatment of pain and disability in adults with knee OA.12 The curcumin (turmeric) group also had fewer adverse effects.12

Cancer. There has been a great deal of research on turmeric’s anti-cancer properties, but clinical evidence is lacking. In vitro evidence, animal studies, and small clinical trials suggest that curcumin may help prevent or treat several types of cancers, but the overall evidence is poor. Nonetheless, curcumin and turmeric have been or are currently being evaluated for the treatment or prevention of prostate, liver, breast, skin, gynecologic, hematologic, pulmonary, thymic, bone, brain, and colon cancer.13-18

Oral submucous fibrosis. A small randomized trial found improvement in oral function with curcumin lozenges, when compared to placebo, indicating that turmeric may hold promise as a treatment of oral submucous fibrosis.19

Uveitis. A small pilot study of 32 patients suggested that oral curcumin may be as effective as corticosteroids for uveitis.20

Heart disease. Curcumin may have a cardiovascular protective role, as it has been shown to reduce atherosclerosis, but a reduction in myocardial infarction or stroke has not been documented.21

Alzheimer’s dementia. Animal studies have shown a reduction in amyloid plaque formation with curcumin.22

Adverse effects (and precautions)

Turmeric in food is considered safe. A variety of animal and human studies have also indicated that curcumin is safe and well tolerated, even at very high doses.13 However, taking large amounts of turmeric for long periods of time could cause stomach upset and gastric ulcers. In addition, patients with gallstones or bile obstruction should use it with caution due to increased bile production.7

Because turmeric may lower blood sugar levels, patients with diabetes should monitor for hypoglycemia when using turmeric in combination with diabetic medications. Similarly, those with bleeding disorders taking blood thinners should use turmeric and curcumin with caution, because it can inhibit platelet aggregation.23

Although it is safe to eat foods with turmeric during pregnancy, pregnant and breastfeeding women should not take turmeric supplements, as the safety of large doses in pregnancy is unknown.

The bottom line

Turmeric/curcumin has anti-inflammatory properties and may be useful as an adjunct for ulcerative colitis and to improve the symptoms of OA. It may also have anti-carcinogenic properties, although definitive data are lacking. Those with a history of gastrointestinal conditions such as gastric ulcer, patients taking blood thinners, and patients with diabetes who are prone to low blood sugar levels should use turmeric/curcumin with caution.

 

 

Chamomile

Overview

Chamomile, a member of the Asteraceae/Compositae family, is one of the oldest herbal medicines. It has been used for hay fever, inflammation, muscle spasms, menstrual disorders, insomnia, ulcers, wounds, gastrointestinal disorders, rheumatic pain, and hemorrhoids. Essential oils of chamomile are used extensively in cosmetics and aromatherapy. Many different preparations have been developed, the most popular being herbal tea.24

A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder.

Individuals with a hypersensitivity to plants of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family such as ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), marigold flower (Calendula officinalis), and chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum spp.) may show a similar reaction to chamomile.25

Anxiety. A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate GAD.26 Another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found oral chamomile extract was efficacious and well-tolerated in patients experiencing mild to moderate GAD and may provide an alternative therapeutic anxiolytic for patients with mild GAD.25 In addition to its anxiolytic activity, chamomile may also provide clinically meaningful antidepressant activity.26

Insomnia. Chamomile may have some impact on sleep diary measures (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, and number of awakenings) relative to placebo in adults with chronic primary insomnia, according to a small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial involving 34 patients.27 However, a systematic review found no statistically significant difference between any herbal medicine (including chamomile) and placebo, for clinical efficacy in patients with insomnia. A similar, or smaller, number of adverse events per person were reported with chamomile compared with placebo, suggesting safe use.28

Infantile colic. A small prospective double-blind study on the use of chamomile-containing tea on infantile colic showed statistically significant symptom improvement in tea-treated infants. The study did note, however, that prolonged ingestion of herbal teas may lead to decreased milk intake.29,30

Adverse effects

As noted earlier, a systematic review found that the number of adverse events per person reported with chamomile was comparable to the number associated with placebo, suggesting that it is safe.28

The bottom line

Chamomile appears to be safe with minimal adverse effects and may be effective for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and infantile colic.

Rosemary

Overview

Rosemary, officially known as Rosmarinus officinalis, is a medicinal evergreen plant native to the Mediterranean area that appears to increase microcapillary perfusion.31

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia, with minimal adverse effects.

Alopecia. A randomized double-blind controlled trial found that essential oils including rosemary oil (as well as thyme, lavender, and cedarwood) massaged into the scalp improved hair growth in almost half of patients with alopecia areata after 7 months.32 Another randomized trial comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2% for androgenetic alopecia showed a significant increase in hair count at the 6-month endpoint compared with the baseline, but no significant difference was found between the study groups regarding hair count either at Month 3 or Month 6 (P >.05). 31

Adverse effects

In the randomized trial described above comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2%, adverse effects appeared to be rare for topical rosemary oil. Scalp itching was more frequent in the minoxidil group.31

The bottom line

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia with minimal adverse effects.

 

 

Coffee/caffeine

Overview

Coffee is one of the most widely used botanicals with approximately 3.5 billion cups of coffee consumed per day worldwide. It is a popular beverage because of its unique aromatic taste and its use as a central nervous system stimulant. The coffee tree (genus coffea) is found throughout Latin America, Africa, and eastern Asia. Two of the most common commercially grown species are Coffea arabica (Arabicas) and Coffea canephora (Robusta). Processing and roasting methods may differ and produce variations in flavor and aroma. The degree of roasting also affects the caffeine content.

Coffee consumption leads to increased alertness and can boost mental performance. Based on the literature and US Food and Drug Administration recommendations, four 8-oz cups of coffee (about 400 mg of caffeine) daily is an acceptable average amount of caffeine. More than 500 mg/d is considered excessive use of coffee.33,34

Overall mortality. A 2008 study showed that regular coffee was not associated with increased or decreased mortality in both men and women.35 However, more recent studies show an inverse relationship between mortality and coffee consumption.

Specifically, a 2014 meta-analysis found an inverse relationship between coffee and mortality.36 A large prospective cohort study from 2015 that included 79,234 women and 76,704 men found that drinking coffee was inversely associated with overall mortality.37 In this cohort study, an inverse association were observed for deaths from heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and self-harm.37 While mechanisms were not analyzed, coffee may reduce mortality risk by affecting inflammation, lung function, insulin sensitivity, and depression.

Cardiovascular disease. Coffee consumption may modestly reduce the risk of stroke, according to a prospective cohort study of 83,076 women from the Nurses’ Health Study who were followed for 24 years.38 Reduced cardiovascular mortality was also found in a large prospective cohort study, as noted in the mortality discussion above.37 A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that coffee consumption is inversely associated with cardiovascular mortality. Drinking 3 or 4 cups a day appears to be the amount that may decrease one’s risk of death when compared to those who do not drink coffee at all.36

Liver disease. Friedrich et al performed a study involving 379 patients with end stage liver disease, and found that coffee consumption delayed the progression of disease in patients with both alcoholic liver disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis.39 Coffee consumption also increased long-term survival after liver transplantation.39 However, the study found that coffee did not have any effect on patients with chronic viral hepatitis.

In a 2016 meta-analysis, caffeinated coffee consumption reduced hepatic fibrosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, although caffeine consumption did not reduce the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.40 Another meta-analysis, including 16 studies, also found caffeine reduced the risk for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.41

Depression. Based on 2 different systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2016, coffee consumption appears to have a significant protective effect, decreasing the risk of developing depression.40,42

Alzheimer’s disease/dementia. Coffee, tea, and caffeine consumption show promise in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Individuals who consume one to 2 cups of coffee per day had a decreased incidence of mild cognitive impairment compared to non-drinkers.43 A 2015 Japanese study also found an inverse association between coffee consumption and dementia among women, nonsmokers, and those who do not drink alcohol.44 Most recently, a 2016 study, the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, looked at incident dementia rates in women >65 years of age with high vs low caffeine intake. Women with higher caffeine intake were less likely to develop dementia or any cognitive impairment compared with those consuming <64 mg/day.45

Type 2 diabetes. A 2009 prospective cohort study, which included 40,011 participants followed for more than 10 years, found that drinking at least 3 cups of coffee or tea was associated with a lowered risk of type 2 diabetes.46 A 2009 systematic review of 20 cohort studies showed that high intakes of coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea are associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.47

A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants found an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.

Melanoma. A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants demon­strated an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.47 The risk of melanoma decreased by 3% and 4% for one cup/day of total coffee and caffeinated coffee consumption, respectively. Furthermore, a 2016 meta-analysis found that caffeinated coffee may have greater chemopreventive effects against melanoma than decaffeinated coffee.48

Adverse effects

Despite the many potential benefits of coffee, caffeine is a potent drug that should be used with caution.49 People with underlying heart problems should avoid caffeine due to concern that it may cause palpitations from tachycardia. It may worsen anxiety problems or depression. Coffee may increase the production of stomach acids, which can worsen acid reflux or stomach ulcers.

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced CV events, and a reduction in liver disease progression.

Caffeine is a potent diuretic and may decrease absorption of calcium and cause OA. Caffeine may cause dependence and withdrawal symptoms. Some of the symptoms of withdrawal include drowsiness, headaches, irritability, nausea, and vomiting. It may disrupt sleeping patterns by causing jitters and sleeplessness.49 Additionally, large amounts of caffeine may cause overdose and death.

The bottom line

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced cardiovascular events, and a reduction in liver disease progression. Coffee may also have some utility for improving cognitive function and reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Caffeinated coffee should be limited to no more than 32 oz per day, due to the risk of insomnia, palpitations, anxiety, and gastritis.

 

 

Chocolate/cocoa

Overview

Few natural products have been claimed to successfully treat as many disorders as chocolate. The modern concept of chocolate as food has overshadowed its traditional medicinal use, although recent trials have looked at evidence for some of its traditional uses. Chocolate is processed from the pod of the cacao plant. The earliest evidence for its medical use is in Mayan civilizations, and for most of its approximately 4000-year history, chocolate was consumed as a bitter drink referred to as the “drink of the Gods.” The traditional drink was mixed with water, vanilla, honey, chili peppers, and other spices. Important components in chocolate include flavonoids (antioxidants), cocoa butter, caffeine, theobromine, and phenylethylamine.  

Chocolate has stimulating, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and cardioprotective effects, and improves the bioavailability of nitric oxide, which can improve blood pressure and platelet function.50 Epicatechin (an antioxidant) in cocoa is primarily responsible for its favorable impact on vascular endothelium via its effect on both acute and chronic upregulation of nitric oxide production. Other cardiovascular effects are mediated by the anti-inflammatory effects of cocoa polyphenols, and modulated through the activity of NF-kappaB.51

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.

Dark chocolate appears to have the greatest benefit, as milk binds to antioxidants in chocolate, making them unavailable. Therefore, milk chocolate is not a good antioxidant source. There is no specific amount of chocolate that is known to be ideal, but an average of one to 2 ounces per day is often used in studies.

Cardiovascular effects. Chocolate does contain saturated fat, but a comparative, double-blind study found that short-term use of cocoa powder lowered plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, oxidized LDL, and apo B concentrations, and the plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentration increased, relative to baseline in the low-, middle-, and high-cocoa groups.52 A small randomized crossover trial without clinical outcomes indicated that chocolate may increase HDL cholesterol without increasing weight.53

A meta-analysis of short-term (2-12 weeks) treatment with dark chocolate/cocoa products showed reductions in LDL and total cholesterol, but no changes in HDL or triglycerides.54 Another meta-analysis of RCTs, however, showed no short-term effect of cocoa/chocolate on lipid concentrations.55 A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study of 62 patients with diabetes and hypertension showed that high polyphenol chocolate improved triglyceride levels.56

Chocolate intake was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline, with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar per week.

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.57-59 A best case scenario analysis using a Markov model to predict the long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of daily dark chocolate consumption in a population with metabolic syndrome at high risk of cardiovascular disease concluded that daily consumption of dark chocolate can reduce cardiovascular events by 85 per 10,000 population treated over 10 years. The study concluded that $42 could be cost effectively spent per person per year on prevention strategies using dark chocolate.59

In addition, a meta-analysis of 7 observational studies showed that high levels of chocolate consumption (any type) were associated with a 29% reduction in stroke compared with the lowest levels of chocolate intake.57 Results of a similar meta-analysis from Neurology in 2012 also suggested that moderate chocolate consumption (any type) may lower the risk of stroke.60

That said, 2 systematic reviews specifically relating to the risk of coronary heart disease and chocolate intake were inconclusive.61-62

Blood pressure (BP). An RCT published in JAMA indicates that inclusion of small amounts of polyphenol-rich dark chocolate as part of a usual diet efficiently reduced BP and improved the formation of vasodilative nitric oxide.63 A meta-analysis of 10 RCTs also showed mean BP change in the active cocoa treatment arms across all trials was -4.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), -5.9 to -3.2; P<.001) for systolic BP and -2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.9 to -1.2; P<.001) for diastolic BP.64

A Cochrane Review meta-analysis of 20 studies revealed a statistically significant BP-reducing effect of flavanol-rich cocoa products compared with control in short-term trials of 2 to 18 weeks' duration.65 Because studies have shown improvement in BP with chocolate intake, investigations into a role of chocolate in the prevention of preeclampsia have been undertaken. In some studies, chocolate intake was associated with reduced odds of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.66,67

Diabetes. Chocolate may exert significant vascular protection because of its antioxidant properties and possible increase of nitric oxide bioavailability, which can influence glucose uptake. A small trial comparing the effects of either dark or white chocolate bars (which do not contain the polyphenols) showed improved BP and glucose and insulin responses to an oral glucose tolerance test in healthy subjects on dark chocolate, but not white chocolate.68 A comparison of chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes in the Physicians’ Health Study showed an inverse relationship between chocolate intake with incident disease, but this association appeared only to apply in younger and normal-body weight men after controlling for comprehensive lifestyles, including total energy consumption.69

Fatigue. The effect of chocolate on a person’s energy level has been noted for centuries.70 A small randomized trial showed improved energy levels in those treated with higher chocolate intakes. In a double-blind, randomized, clinical pilot crossover study, high cocoa liquor/polyphenol rich chocolate, reduced fatigue in subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome.71

Anxiety. A small randomized trial showed chocolate decreased anxiety in high-anxiety trait subjects and improved the anxiety level and the energy levels of low-anxiety trait participants.72

Eye effects. The literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the effect of flavonoids on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. However, a meta-analysis showed that flavonoids have a promising role in improving visual function in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and appear to play a part in both improving and slowing the progression of visual field loss.73

Cognitive decline. Chocolate intake (any type) was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92) with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar or one tablespoon of cocoa powder per week. This protective effect was observed only among subjects with an average daily consumption of caffeine <75  mg (69% of the participants; RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82).74

The bottom line

Chocolate with high cocoa content (dark chocolate) appears to be safe and beneficial as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle that includes exercise and stress reduction to decrease cardiovascular risk and may improve energy levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed Nov 28, 2017.
2. Aggarwal BB. Curcumin-free turmeric exhibits anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities: identification of novel components of turmeric. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57:1529-1542.
3. Henrotin Y, Clutterbuck AL, Allaway D, et al. Biological actions of curcumin on articular chondrocytes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18:141-149.
4. Asher GN, Spelman K. Clinical utility of curcumin extract. Altern Ther Health Med. 2013;19:20-22.
5. Phan TT, See P, Lee ST, et al. Protective effects of curcumin against oxidative damage on skin cells in vitro: its implication for wound healing. J Trauma. 2001;51:927-931.
6. Funk JL, Frye JB, Oyarzo JN, et al. Efficacy and mechanism of action of turmeric supplements in the treatment of experimental arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3452-3464.
7. Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Chili peppers, curcumins, and prebiotics in gastrointestinal health and disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18:19.
8. Thamlikitkul V, Bunyapraphatsara N, Dechatiwongse T, et al. Randomized double blind study of Curcuma domestica Val. for dyspepsia. J Med Assoc Thai. 1989;72:613-620.
9. Kumar S, Ahuja V, Sankar MJ, et al. Curcumin for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD008424.
10. Lang A, Salomon N, Wu JC, et al. Curcumin in combination with mesalamine induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1444-1449.e1.
11. Henrotin Y, Priem F, Mobasheri A. Curcumin: a new paradigm and therapeutic opportunity for the treatment of osteoarthritis: curcumin for osteoarthritis management. Springerplus. 2013;2:56.
12. Kuptniratsaikul V, Dajpratham P, Taechaarpornkul W, et al. Efficacy and safety of Curcuma domestica extracts compared with ibuprofen in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:451-458.
13. Shehzad A, Lee J, Lee YS. Curcumin in various cancers. Biofactors. 2013;39:56-68.
14. Sordillo LA, Sordillo PP, Helson L. Curcumin for the treatment of glioblastoma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:6373-6378.
15. Darvesh AS, Aggarwal BB, Bishayee A. Curcumin and liver cancer: a review. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2012;13:218-228.
16. Nagaraju GP, Aliya S, Zafar SF, et al. The impact of curcumin on breast cancer. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012;4:996-1007.
17. Johnson JJ, Mukhtar H. Curcumin for chemoprevention of colon cancer. Cancer Lett. 2007;255:170-181.
18. Dorai T, Cao YC, Dorai B, et al. Therapeutic potential of curcumin in human prostate cancer. III. Curcumin inhibits proliferation, induces apoptosis, and inhibits angiogenesis of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in vivo. Prostate. 2001;47:293-303.
19. Hazarey VK, Sakrikar AR, Ganvir SM. Efficacy of curcumin in the treatment for oral submucous fibrosis - a randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2015;19:145-152.
20. Lal B, Kapoor AK, Asthana OP, et al. Efficacy of curcumin in the management of chronic anterior uveitis. Phytother Res. 1999;13:318-322.
21. Kapakos G, Youreva V, Srivastava AK. Cardiovascular protection by curcumin: molecular aspects. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2012;49:306-315.
22. Yang F, Lim GP, Begum AN, et al. Curcumin inhibits formation of amyloid beta oligomers and fibrils, binds plaques, and reduces amyloid in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:5892-5901.
23. Heck AM, DeWitt BA, Lukes AL. Potential interactions between alternative therapies and warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57:1221-1227.
24. Srivastava JK, Shankar E, Gupta S. Chamomile: a herbal medicine of the past with bright future. Mol Med Rep. 2010;3:895-901.
25. Ross SM. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): efficacy of standardized matricaria recutita (german chamomile) extract in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Holistic Nursing Practice. 2013;27:366- 368.
26. Amsterdam JD, Li Y, Soeller I, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:378-382.
27. Zick SM, Wright BD, Sen A, et al. Preliminary examination of the efficacy and safety of a standardized chamomile extract for chronic primary insomnia: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011;11:78.
28. Leach MJ, Page AT. Herbal medicine for insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2015;24:1-12.
29. Weizman Z, Alkrinawi S, Goldfarb D, et al. Efficacy of herbal tea preparation in infantile colic. J Pediatr. 1993;122:650.
30. Crotteau CA, Wright ST, Eglash A. Clinical inquiries. What is the best treatment for infants with colic? J Fam Pract. 2006;55:634-636.
31. Panahi Y, Taghizadeh M, Marzony ET, et al. Rosemary oil vs minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a randomized comparative trial. Skinmed. 2015;13:15-21.
32. Hay IC, Jamieson M, Ormerod AD. Randomized trial of aromatherapy. Successful treatment for alopecia areata. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1349-1352.
33. Caffeine and kids: FDA takes a closer look. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm350570.htm. Accessed: November 1, 2017.
34. Torpy JM, Livingston EH. Energy Drinks. JAMA. 2013;309:297.
35. Lopez-Garcia E, van Dam RM, Li TY, et al. The relationship of coffee consumption with mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:904-914.
36. Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, et al. Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180:763-775.
37. Loftfield E, Freedman ND, Graubard BI, et al. Association of coffee consumption with overall and cause-specific mortality in a large US prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182:1010-1022.
38. Lopez-Garcia E, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Rexrode KM, et al. Coffee consumption and risk of stroke in women. Circulation. 2009;119:1116-1123.
39. Friedrich K, Smit M, Wannhoff A, et al. Coffee consumption protects against progression in liver cirrhosis and increases long-term survival after liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1470-1475.
40. Wang L, Shen X, Wu Y, et al. Coffee and caffeine consumption and depression: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50:228-242.
41. Liu F, Wang X, Wu G, et al. Coffee consumption decreases risks for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142457.
42. Grosso G, Micek A, Castellano S, et al. Coffee, tea, caffeine and risk of depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016;60:223-234.
43. Solfrizzi V, Panza F, Imbimbo BP, et al. Italian longitudinal study on aging working group. Coffee consumption habits and the risk of mild cognitive impairment: The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47:889-899.
44. Sugiyama K, Tomata Y, Kaiho Y, et al. Association between coffee consumption and incident risk of disabling dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;50:491-500.
45. Driscoll I, Shumaker SA, Snively BM, et al. Relationships between caffeine intake and risk for probable dementia or global cognitive impairment: The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71:1596-1602.
46. van Dieren S, Uiterwaal CS, van der Schouw YT, et al. Coffee and tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2009;52:2561-2569.
47. Wang J, Li X, Zhang D. Coffee consumption and the risk of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55:1317-1329.
48. Liu J, Shen B, Shi M, et al. Higher caffeinated coffee intake is associated with reduced malignant melanoma risk: a meta-analysis study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147056.
49. Wikoff D, Welsh BT, Henderson R, et al. Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. Food Chem Toxical. 2017;109(Pt 1):585-648.
50. Verna R. The history and science of chocolate. Malays J Pathol. 2013;35:111-121.
51. Katz DL, Doughty K, Ali A. Cocoa and chocolate in human health and disease. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011;15:2779-2811. 

52. Baba S, Natsume M, Yasuda A, et al. Plasma LDL and HDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL concentrations are altered in normo- and hypercholesterolemic humans after intake of different levels of cocoa powder. J Nutr. 2007;137:1436-1441.
53. Mellor DD, Sathyapalan T, Kilpatrick ES, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves HDL cholesterol in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabet Med. 2010;27:1318-1321.
54. Tokede OA, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Effects of cocoa products/dark chocolate on serum lipids: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65:879-886.
55. Jia L, Liu X, Bai YY, et al. Short-term effect of cocoa product consumption on lipid profile: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:218-225.
56. Rostami A, Khalili M, Haghighat N, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves blood pressure in patients with diabetes and hypertension. ARYA Atheroscler. 2015;11:21-29.
57. Buitrago-Lopez A, Sanderson J, Johnson L, et al. Chocolate consumption and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;26;343:d4488.
58. Wang X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, et al. Flavonoid intake and risk of CVD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;111:1-11.
59. Zomer E, Owen A, Magliano DJ, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dark chocolate consumption as prevention therapy in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: best case scenario analysis using a Markov model. BMJ. 2012;344:e3657.
60. Larsson SC, Virtamo J, Wolk A. Chocolate consumption and risk of stroke: a prospective cohort of men and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2012;79:1223-1229.
61. Khawaja O, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Chocolate and coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2011;13:447-452.
62. Jacques PF, Cassidy A, Rogers G, et al. Dietary flavonoid intakes and CVD incidence in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. Br J Nutr. 2015;114:1496-1503.
63. Taubert D, Roesen R, Lehmann C, et al. Effects of low habitual cocoa intake on blood pressure and bioactive nitric oxide: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298:49-60.
64. Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, et al. Effect of cocoa products on blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:97-103.
65. Ried K, Sullivan TR, Fakler P, et al. Effect of cocoa on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008893.
66. Saftlas AF, Triche EW, Beydoun H, et al. Does chocolate intake during pregnancy reduce the risks of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension? Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20:584-591.
67. Triche EW, Grosso LM, Belanger K, et al. Chocolate consumption in pregnancy and reduced likelihood of preeclampsia. Epidemiology. 2008;19:459-464.
68. Grassi D, Lippi C, Necozione S, et al. Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:611-614.
69. Matsumoto C, Petrone AB, Sesso HD, et al. Chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes mellitus in the Physicians’ Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:362-367.
70. Lippi D. Chocolate in history: food, medicine, medi-food. Nutrients. 2013;5:1573-1584.
71. Sathyapalan T, Beckett S, Rigby AS, et al. High cocoa polyphenol rich chocolate may reduce the burden of the symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome. Nutr J. 2010;9:55.
72. Martin FP, Antille N, Rezzi S, et al. Everyday eating experiences of chocolate and non-chocolate snacks impact postprandial anxiety, energy and emotional states. Nutrients. 2012;4:554-567.
73. Patel S, Mathan JJ, Vaghefi E, et al. The effect of flavonoids on visual function in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:1841-1850.
74. Moreira A, Diógenes MJ, de Mendonça A, et al. Chocolate consumption is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;53:85-93.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed Nov 28, 2017.
2. Aggarwal BB. Curcumin-free turmeric exhibits anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities: identification of novel components of turmeric. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57:1529-1542.
3. Henrotin Y, Clutterbuck AL, Allaway D, et al. Biological actions of curcumin on articular chondrocytes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18:141-149.
4. Asher GN, Spelman K. Clinical utility of curcumin extract. Altern Ther Health Med. 2013;19:20-22.
5. Phan TT, See P, Lee ST, et al. Protective effects of curcumin against oxidative damage on skin cells in vitro: its implication for wound healing. J Trauma. 2001;51:927-931.
6. Funk JL, Frye JB, Oyarzo JN, et al. Efficacy and mechanism of action of turmeric supplements in the treatment of experimental arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3452-3464.
7. Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Chili peppers, curcumins, and prebiotics in gastrointestinal health and disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18:19.
8. Thamlikitkul V, Bunyapraphatsara N, Dechatiwongse T, et al. Randomized double blind study of Curcuma domestica Val. for dyspepsia. J Med Assoc Thai. 1989;72:613-620.
9. Kumar S, Ahuja V, Sankar MJ, et al. Curcumin for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD008424.
10. Lang A, Salomon N, Wu JC, et al. Curcumin in combination with mesalamine induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1444-1449.e1.
11. Henrotin Y, Priem F, Mobasheri A. Curcumin: a new paradigm and therapeutic opportunity for the treatment of osteoarthritis: curcumin for osteoarthritis management. Springerplus. 2013;2:56.
12. Kuptniratsaikul V, Dajpratham P, Taechaarpornkul W, et al. Efficacy and safety of Curcuma domestica extracts compared with ibuprofen in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:451-458.
13. Shehzad A, Lee J, Lee YS. Curcumin in various cancers. Biofactors. 2013;39:56-68.
14. Sordillo LA, Sordillo PP, Helson L. Curcumin for the treatment of glioblastoma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:6373-6378.
15. Darvesh AS, Aggarwal BB, Bishayee A. Curcumin and liver cancer: a review. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2012;13:218-228.
16. Nagaraju GP, Aliya S, Zafar SF, et al. The impact of curcumin on breast cancer. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012;4:996-1007.
17. Johnson JJ, Mukhtar H. Curcumin for chemoprevention of colon cancer. Cancer Lett. 2007;255:170-181.
18. Dorai T, Cao YC, Dorai B, et al. Therapeutic potential of curcumin in human prostate cancer. III. Curcumin inhibits proliferation, induces apoptosis, and inhibits angiogenesis of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in vivo. Prostate. 2001;47:293-303.
19. Hazarey VK, Sakrikar AR, Ganvir SM. Efficacy of curcumin in the treatment for oral submucous fibrosis - a randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2015;19:145-152.
20. Lal B, Kapoor AK, Asthana OP, et al. Efficacy of curcumin in the management of chronic anterior uveitis. Phytother Res. 1999;13:318-322.
21. Kapakos G, Youreva V, Srivastava AK. Cardiovascular protection by curcumin: molecular aspects. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2012;49:306-315.
22. Yang F, Lim GP, Begum AN, et al. Curcumin inhibits formation of amyloid beta oligomers and fibrils, binds plaques, and reduces amyloid in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:5892-5901.
23. Heck AM, DeWitt BA, Lukes AL. Potential interactions between alternative therapies and warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57:1221-1227.
24. Srivastava JK, Shankar E, Gupta S. Chamomile: a herbal medicine of the past with bright future. Mol Med Rep. 2010;3:895-901.
25. Ross SM. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): efficacy of standardized matricaria recutita (german chamomile) extract in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Holistic Nursing Practice. 2013;27:366- 368.
26. Amsterdam JD, Li Y, Soeller I, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:378-382.
27. Zick SM, Wright BD, Sen A, et al. Preliminary examination of the efficacy and safety of a standardized chamomile extract for chronic primary insomnia: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011;11:78.
28. Leach MJ, Page AT. Herbal medicine for insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2015;24:1-12.
29. Weizman Z, Alkrinawi S, Goldfarb D, et al. Efficacy of herbal tea preparation in infantile colic. J Pediatr. 1993;122:650.
30. Crotteau CA, Wright ST, Eglash A. Clinical inquiries. What is the best treatment for infants with colic? J Fam Pract. 2006;55:634-636.
31. Panahi Y, Taghizadeh M, Marzony ET, et al. Rosemary oil vs minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a randomized comparative trial. Skinmed. 2015;13:15-21.
32. Hay IC, Jamieson M, Ormerod AD. Randomized trial of aromatherapy. Successful treatment for alopecia areata. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1349-1352.
33. Caffeine and kids: FDA takes a closer look. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm350570.htm. Accessed: November 1, 2017.
34. Torpy JM, Livingston EH. Energy Drinks. JAMA. 2013;309:297.
35. Lopez-Garcia E, van Dam RM, Li TY, et al. The relationship of coffee consumption with mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:904-914.
36. Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, et al. Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180:763-775.
37. Loftfield E, Freedman ND, Graubard BI, et al. Association of coffee consumption with overall and cause-specific mortality in a large US prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182:1010-1022.
38. Lopez-Garcia E, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Rexrode KM, et al. Coffee consumption and risk of stroke in women. Circulation. 2009;119:1116-1123.
39. Friedrich K, Smit M, Wannhoff A, et al. Coffee consumption protects against progression in liver cirrhosis and increases long-term survival after liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1470-1475.
40. Wang L, Shen X, Wu Y, et al. Coffee and caffeine consumption and depression: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50:228-242.
41. Liu F, Wang X, Wu G, et al. Coffee consumption decreases risks for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142457.
42. Grosso G, Micek A, Castellano S, et al. Coffee, tea, caffeine and risk of depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016;60:223-234.
43. Solfrizzi V, Panza F, Imbimbo BP, et al. Italian longitudinal study on aging working group. Coffee consumption habits and the risk of mild cognitive impairment: The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47:889-899.
44. Sugiyama K, Tomata Y, Kaiho Y, et al. Association between coffee consumption and incident risk of disabling dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;50:491-500.
45. Driscoll I, Shumaker SA, Snively BM, et al. Relationships between caffeine intake and risk for probable dementia or global cognitive impairment: The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71:1596-1602.
46. van Dieren S, Uiterwaal CS, van der Schouw YT, et al. Coffee and tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2009;52:2561-2569.
47. Wang J, Li X, Zhang D. Coffee consumption and the risk of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55:1317-1329.
48. Liu J, Shen B, Shi M, et al. Higher caffeinated coffee intake is associated with reduced malignant melanoma risk: a meta-analysis study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147056.
49. Wikoff D, Welsh BT, Henderson R, et al. Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. Food Chem Toxical. 2017;109(Pt 1):585-648.
50. Verna R. The history and science of chocolate. Malays J Pathol. 2013;35:111-121.
51. Katz DL, Doughty K, Ali A. Cocoa and chocolate in human health and disease. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011;15:2779-2811. 

52. Baba S, Natsume M, Yasuda A, et al. Plasma LDL and HDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL concentrations are altered in normo- and hypercholesterolemic humans after intake of different levels of cocoa powder. J Nutr. 2007;137:1436-1441.
53. Mellor DD, Sathyapalan T, Kilpatrick ES, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves HDL cholesterol in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabet Med. 2010;27:1318-1321.
54. Tokede OA, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Effects of cocoa products/dark chocolate on serum lipids: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65:879-886.
55. Jia L, Liu X, Bai YY, et al. Short-term effect of cocoa product consumption on lipid profile: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:218-225.
56. Rostami A, Khalili M, Haghighat N, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves blood pressure in patients with diabetes and hypertension. ARYA Atheroscler. 2015;11:21-29.
57. Buitrago-Lopez A, Sanderson J, Johnson L, et al. Chocolate consumption and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;26;343:d4488.
58. Wang X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, et al. Flavonoid intake and risk of CVD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;111:1-11.
59. Zomer E, Owen A, Magliano DJ, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dark chocolate consumption as prevention therapy in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: best case scenario analysis using a Markov model. BMJ. 2012;344:e3657.
60. Larsson SC, Virtamo J, Wolk A. Chocolate consumption and risk of stroke: a prospective cohort of men and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2012;79:1223-1229.
61. Khawaja O, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Chocolate and coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2011;13:447-452.
62. Jacques PF, Cassidy A, Rogers G, et al. Dietary flavonoid intakes and CVD incidence in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. Br J Nutr. 2015;114:1496-1503.
63. Taubert D, Roesen R, Lehmann C, et al. Effects of low habitual cocoa intake on blood pressure and bioactive nitric oxide: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298:49-60.
64. Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, et al. Effect of cocoa products on blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:97-103.
65. Ried K, Sullivan TR, Fakler P, et al. Effect of cocoa on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008893.
66. Saftlas AF, Triche EW, Beydoun H, et al. Does chocolate intake during pregnancy reduce the risks of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension? Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20:584-591.
67. Triche EW, Grosso LM, Belanger K, et al. Chocolate consumption in pregnancy and reduced likelihood of preeclampsia. Epidemiology. 2008;19:459-464.
68. Grassi D, Lippi C, Necozione S, et al. Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:611-614.
69. Matsumoto C, Petrone AB, Sesso HD, et al. Chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes mellitus in the Physicians’ Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:362-367.
70. Lippi D. Chocolate in history: food, medicine, medi-food. Nutrients. 2013;5:1573-1584.
71. Sathyapalan T, Beckett S, Rigby AS, et al. High cocoa polyphenol rich chocolate may reduce the burden of the symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome. Nutr J. 2010;9:55.
72. Martin FP, Antille N, Rezzi S, et al. Everyday eating experiences of chocolate and non-chocolate snacks impact postprandial anxiety, energy and emotional states. Nutrients. 2012;4:554-567.
73. Patel S, Mathan JJ, Vaghefi E, et al. The effect of flavonoids on visual function in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:1841-1850.
74. Moreira A, Diógenes MJ, de Mendonça A, et al. Chocolate consumption is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;53:85-93.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 28(6)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 28(6)
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The Evidence for Herbal and Botanical Remedies, Part 2
Display Headline
The Evidence for Herbal and Botanical Remedies, Part 2
Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Inform patients that curcumin appears to be a safe and effective adjunctive therapy for ulcerative colitis when used along with mesalamine or sulfasalazine. B

› Recommend chamomile extract to patients experiencing mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder. B

› Tell patients that coffee is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced cardiovascular events, and a reduction in liver disease progression (in patients with end-stage liver disease). B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
PubMed ID
29309470
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Herbals
Gate On Date
Thu, 05/31/2018 - 09:15
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 05/31/2018 - 09:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 05/31/2018 - 09:15

The Evidence for Herbal and Botanical Remedies

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 08/01/2018 - 12:04
Display Headline
The Evidence for Herbal and Botanical Remedies, Part 1

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, a division of the National Institutes of Medicine, estimates that 38% of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine (including 17.7% who say they use “natural products”).1 Despite the popularity of these products, many providers remain skeptical—and for good reason. Enthusiasts may offer dramatic anecdotes to “prove” their supplements’ worth, but little scientific support is available for most herbal remedies. There are, however, exceptions—capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint—as this review of the medical literature reveals.

Worth noting as you consider this—or any—review of herbals is that while there is limited scientific evidence to establish the safety and efficacy of most herbal products, they are nonetheless freely sold without FDA approval because, under current regulations, they are considered dietary supplements. That legal designation means companies can manufacture, sell, and market herbs without first demonstrating safety and efficacy, as is required for pharmaceutical drugs. Because herbal medications do not require the same testing through the large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) required for pharmaceuticals, evidence is often based on smaller RCTs and other studies of lower overall quality. Despite these limitations, we believe it’s worth keeping an open mind about the value of evidence-based herbal and botanical treatments.

CAPSAICIN

Capsaicin, an active compound in chili peppers, provokes a burning sensation but also has a long history of use in pain treatment.2 Qutenza, an FDA-approved, chemically synthesized 8% capsaicin patch, is identical to the naturally occurring molecule.2 Topical capsaicin exerts its therapeutic effect by rapidly depleting substance P, thus reducing the transmission of pain from C fibers to higher neurologic centers in the area of administration.3

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown capsaicin is effective for various painful conditions, including peripheral diabetic neuropathy, osteoarthritis (OA), low back pain (LBP), and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).

Peripheral neuropathy. A Cochrane review of six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least six weeks’ duration using topical 8% capsaicin to treat PHN and HIV-associated neuropathy concluded that high-concentration topical capsaicin provided more relief in patients with high pain levels than control patients who received a subtherapeutic (0.04%) capsaicin cream. Number-needed-to-treat values were between 8 and 12. Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported enough to calculate a number needed to harm.4

OA. In randomized trials, capsaicin provided mild-to-moderate efficacy for patients with hand and knee OA, when compared with placebo.5-7 A systematic review of capsaicin for all osteoarthritic conditions noted that there was consistent evidence that capsaicin gel was effective for OA.8 However, a 2013 Cochrane review of only knee OA noted that capsicum extract did not provide significant clinical improvement for pain or function and resulted in a significant number of adverse events.9

LBP. Based on a 2014 Cochrane review of three trials (755 subjects) of moderate quality, capsicum frutescens cream or plaster appeared more efficacious than placebo in people with chronic LBP.10 Based on current (low-quality) evidence in one trial, however, it’s not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for acute LBP than placebo.10

PHN. Topical capsaicin is an FDA-approved treatment for PHN. A review and cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that 8% capsaicin had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) used to treat PHN.11 The cost of the capsaicin patch was similar to a topical lidocaine patch and oral products for PHN.11 A meta-analysis of seven RCTs indicated that 8% topical capsaicin was superior to the low-dose capsaicin patch for relieving pain associated with PHN.12

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

Very few toxic effects have been reported during a half-century of capsaicin use. Those that have been reported are mainly limited to mild local reactions.2 The most common adverse effect of topical capsaicin is local irritation (burning, stinging, and erythema), which was reported in approximately 40% of patients.6 Nevertheless, more than 90% of the subjects in clinical studies were able to complete the studies, and pain rapidly resolved after patch removal.2 Washing with soap and water may help prevent the compound from spreading to other parts of the body unintentionally.

The safety of the patch has been demonstrated with repeated dosing every three months for up to one year. However, the long-term risks of chronic capsaicin use and its effect on epidermal innervation are uncertain.5

 

The bottom line

Capsaicin appears to be an effective treatment for neuropathy and chronic LBP. It is FDA approved for the treatment of PHN. It may also benefit patients with OA and acute LBP. Serious adverse effects are uncommon with topical use. Common adverse effects include burning pain and irritation in the area of application, which can be intense and cause discontinuation.2

Continue to: BUTTERBUR

 

 

BUTTERBUR

Petasites hybridus, also known as butterbur, is a member of the daisy family, Asteraceae, and is a perennial plant found throughout Europe and Asia.13 It was used as a remedy for ulcers, wounds, and inflammation in ancient Greece. Its calcium channel–blocking effects may counteract vasoconstriction and play a role in preventing hyperexcitation of neurons.14 Sesquiterpenes, the pharmacologically active compounds in butterbur, have strong anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory effects through lipoxygenase and leukotriene inhibition.14

Migraine headache. Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis. Several studies have shown butterbur to significantly reduce the number of migraine attacks per month when compared with placebo. In a small, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study on the efficacy and tolerability of a special butterbur root extract (Petadolex) for the prevention of migraine, response rate was 45% in the butterbur group vs 15% in the placebo group. Butterbur was well tolerated.15 Similar results were found in another RCT in which butterbur 75 mg bid significantly reduced migraine frequency by 48%, compared with 26% for the placebo group.16 Butterbur was well tolerated in this study, too, and no serious adverse events occurred. Findings suggest that 75 mg bid may be a good option for migraine prevention, given the agent’s safety profile.

Petadolex may also be a good option in pediatric migraine. A 2005 study in children and adolescents found that 77% of patients experienced a reduction in attacks by at least 50% with butterbur. Patients were treated with 50 mg to 150 mg over four months.17

In their 2012 guidelines for migraine prevention, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society gave butterbur a Level A recommendation, concluding that butterbur should be offered to patients with migraine to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks.18 However, the AAN changed its position in 2015, redacting the recommendation due to serious safety concerns.19

Allergic rhinitis. Although the data are not convincing, some studies have shown that butterbur may be beneficial for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.20,21

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

While the butterbur plant itself contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PA), which are hepatotoxic and carcinogenic, extracts of butterbur root that are almost completely free from these alkaloids are available. Patients who choose to use butterbur should be advised to use only products that are certified and labeled PA free.

Petadolex, the medication used in migraine studies, was initially approved by the German health regulatory authority, but approval was later withdrawn due to concerns about liver toxicity.22 In 2012, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency withdrew all butterbur products from the market due to associated cases of liver toxicity.22 Butterbur products are still available in the US market, and the risks and benefits should be discussed with all patients considering this treatment. Liver function monitoring is recommended for all patients using butterbur.22

The herb can also cause dyspepsia, headache, itchy eyes, gastrointestinal symptoms, asthma, fatigue, and drowsiness. Additionally, people who are allergic to ragweed and daisies may have allergic reactions to butterbur. Eructation (belching) occurred in 7% of patients in a pediatric study.17

 

The bottom line

Butterbur appears to be efficacious for migraine prophylaxis, but long-term safety is unknown and serious concerns exist for liver toxicity.

Continue to: GREEN TEA

 

 

GREEN TEA

Most tea leaves come from the Camellia sinensis bush, but green and black tea are processed differently to produce different end products.23 It is estimated that green tea accounts for approximately a quarter of all tea consumption and is most commonly consumed in Asian countries.23 The health-promoting effects of green tea are mainly attributed to its polyphenol content.24 Of the many types of tea, green tea has the highest concentration of polyphenols, including catechins, which are powerful antioxidants.23,24 Green tea has been used in traditional Chinese and Indian medicine to control bleeding, improve digestion, and promote overall health.23

Dementia. Green tea polyphenols may enhance cognition and may protect against the development of dementia. In-vitro studies have shown that green tea reduces hydrogen peroxide and ß-amyloid peptides, which are significant in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.25 A 12-subject double-blind study found green tea increased working memory and had an impact on frontoparietal brain connections.26 Furthermore, a cohort study with 13,645 Japanese participants over a five-year period found that frequent green tea consumption (> 5 cups per day) was associated with a lower risk for dementia.27 Additional studies are needed, but green tea may be useful in the treatment or prevention of dementia in the future.

Coronary artery disease. In one study, green tea plasma and urinary concen­trations were associated with plasma biomarkers of cardiovascular disease and ­diabetes.28 In one review, the consumption of green tea was associated with a statis­tically significant reduction in LDL cholesterol.29 Furthermore, a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies concluded that increased tea consumption (of any type) is associated with a reduced risk for coronary heart disease, cardiac death, stroke, and total mortality.30

Cancer. Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk for cancer, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent. Studies have shown that cancer rates tend to be lower in those who consume higher levels of green tea.31,32 Whether this can be attributed solely to green tea remains debatable. Several other studies have shown that polyphenols in green tea can inhibit the growth of cancer cells, but the exact mechanism by which tea interacts with cancerous cells is unknown.23

Several population-based studies have been performed, mostly in Japan, which showed green tea consumption reduced the risk for cancer. Fewer prostate cancer cases have been reported in men who consume green tea.33 While studies have been performed to determine whether green tea has effects on pancreatic, esophageal, ovarian, breast, bladder, and colorectal cancer, the evidence remains inadequate.32

Diabetes. Green tea has been shown in several studies to have a beneficial effect on diabetes. A retrospective Japanese cohort study showed that those who consumed green tea were one-third less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.34 A 10-year study from Taiwan found lower body fat and smaller waist circumference in those who consumed green tea regularly.35 A 2014 meta-analysis and systematic review of tea (any type) consumption and the risk for diabetes concluded that three or more cups of tea per day was associated with a lower risk for diabetes.36 Another meta-analysis of 17 RCTs focused on green tea concluded that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.37

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

There have been concerns about potential hepatotoxicity induced by green tea intake.38 However, a systematic review of 34 RCTs on liver-related adverse events from green tea showed only a slight elevation in liver function tests; no serious liver-related adverse events were reported.38 This review suggested that liver-related adverse events after intake of green tea extracts are rare.38

Consuming green tea in the diet may lower the risk for adverse effects since the concentration consumed is generally much lower than that found in extracts.

Contraindications to drinking green tea are few. Individuals with caffeine sensitivities could experience insomnia, anxiety, irritability, or upset stomach. Additionally, patients who are taking anticoagulation drugs, such as warfarin, should avoid green tea due to its vitamin K content, which can counter the effects of warfarin. Pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with heart problems or high blood pressure, kidney or liver problems, stomach ulcers, or anxiety disorders should use caution with green tea consumption.

 

The bottom line

Green tea consumption in the diet appears to be safe and may have beneficial effects on weight, dementia, and risk for diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Patients may want to consider drinking green tea as part of a healthy diet, in combination with exercise.

Continue to: PEPPERMINT

 

 

PEPPERMINT

Mentha piperita, also known as peppermint, is a hybrid between water mint and spearmint. It is found throughout Europe and North America and is commonly used in tea and toothpaste and as a flavoring for gum. Menthol and methyl salicylate are the main active ingredients in peppermint, and peppermint has calcium channel–blocker effects.39 Menthol has been shown to help regulate cold and pain sensation through the TRPM8 receptor.40 The peppermint herb is used both orally and topically, and has been studied in the treatment of multiple conditions.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). It appears that peppermint inhibits spontaneous peristaltic activity, which reduces gastric emptying, decreases basal tone in the gastrointestinal tract, and slows down peristalsis in the gut.39

The American College of Gastroenterology guidelines currently note that there is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.41 A Cochrane review concluded that peppermint appears to be beneficial for IBS-related symptoms and pain.42 In a systematic review of nine studies from 2014, peppermint oil was found to be more effective than placebo for IBS symptoms such as pain, bloating, gas, and diarrhea.43 The review also indicated that peppermint oil is safe, with heartburn being the most common complaint.43 A 2016 study also found that triple-coated microspheres containing peppermint oil reduced the frequency and intensity of IBS symptoms.44

Non-ulcer dyspepsia. In combination with caraway oil, peppermint oil can be used to reduce symptoms of non-ulcer dyspepsia.45,46 A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study found that 43.3% of subjects improved with a peppermint-caraway oil combination after eight weeks, compared with 3.5% receiving placebo.46

Barium enema–related colonic spasm. Peppermint can relax the lower esophageal sphincter, and it has been shown to be useful as an antispasmodic agent for barium enema–related colonic spasm.47,48

Itching/skin irritation. Peppermint, when applied topically, has been used to calm pruritus and relieve irritation and inflammation. It has a soothing and cooling effect on the skin. At least one study found it to be effective in the treatment of pruritus gravidarum, although the study population consisted of only 96 subjects.49

Migraine headache. Initial small trials suggest that menthol is likely beneficial for migraine headaches. A pilot trial of 25 patients treated with topical menthol 6% gel for an acute migraine attack showed a significant improvement in headache intensity two hours after gel application.50 In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 35 patients, a menthol 10% solution was shown to be more efficacious as abortive treatment of migraine headaches than placebo.51

Tension headache. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study, topical peppermint oil showed a significant clinical reduction in tension headache pain.52 Another small, randomized, double-blind trial showed that tiger balm (containing menthol as the main ingredient) also produced statistically significant improvement in tension headache discomfort compared with placebo.53

Continue to: Musculoskeletal pain

 

 

Musculoskeletal pain. A small study comparing topical menthol to ice for muscle soreness noted decreased perceived discomfort with menthol.54 Menthol has also been shown to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.55

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A triple-blind RCT concluded that topical menthol acutely reduced pain intensity in slaughterhouse workers with CTS, and it should be considered as an effective nonsystemic alternative to regular analgesics in the workplace management of chronic and neuropathic pain.56

Adverse effects

Peppermint appears to be safe for most adults when used in small doses, and serious adverse effects are rare.43,57 While peppermint tea appears to be safe in moderate-to-large amounts, people allergic to plants in the peppermint family (eg, mint, thyme, sage, rosemary, marjoram, basil, lavender) may experience allergic reactions with swelling, wheals, or erythema. Peppermint may also cause heartburn due to relaxation of the cardiac sphincter.

Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, flushing, and headache.58 The herb may also be both hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic at extremely high doses.59 Other considerations for women are that it can trigger menstruation and should be avoided during pregnancy. Due to uncertain efficacy in this population, peppermint oil should not be used on the face of infants, young children, or pregnant women.58,59

The bottom line

Peppermint appears to be safe and well tolerated. It is useful in alleviating IBS symptoms and may be effective in the treatment of non-ulcerative dyspepsia, musculoskeletal pain, headache, and CTS.54,55

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed April 19, 2018.
2. Wallace M, Pappagallo M. Qutenza: a capsaicin 8% patch for the management of postherpetic neuralgia. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11:15-27.
3. Rains C, Bryson HM. Topical capsaicin. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic potential in post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy and osteoarthritis. Drugs Aging. 1995;7:317-328.
4. Derry S, Sven-Rice A, Cole P, et al. Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD007393.
5. Mason L, Moore RA, Derry S, et al. Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain. BMJ. 2004;328:991.
6. Deal CL, Schnitzer TJ, Lipstein E, et al. Treatment of arthritis with topical capsaicin: a double-blind trial. Clin Ther. 1991; 13:383.
7. McCarthy GM, McCarty DJ. Effect of topical capsaicin in the therapy of painful osteoarthritis of the hands. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:604.
8. De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E, et al; Arthritis Research UK Working Group on Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50:911-920.
9. Cameron M, Chrubasik S. Topical herbal therapies for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5): CD010538.
10. Oltean H, Robbins C, van Tulder MW, et al. Herbal medicine for low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12): CD004504.
11. Armstrong EP, Malone DC, McCarberg B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:939-950.
12. Mou J, Paillard F, Turnbull B, et al. Efficacy of Qutenza (capsaicin) 8% patch for neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis of the Qutenza Clinical Trials Database. Pain. 2013;154:1632-1639.
13. Sun-Edelstein C, Mauskop A. Alternative headache treatments: nutraceuticals, behavioral and physical treatments. Headache. 2011;51:469-483.
14. D’Andrea G, Cevoli S, Cologno D. Herbal therapy in migraine. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(suppl 1):135-140.
15. Diener HC, Rahlfs VW, Danesch U. The first placebo-controlled trial of a special butterbur root extract for the prevention of migraine: reanalysis of efficacy criteria. Eur Neurol. 2004;51:89-97.
16. Lipton RB, Göbel H, Einhäupl KM, et al. Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology. 2004;63:2240-2244.
17. Pothmann R, Danesch U. Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract. Headache. 2005;45:196-203.
18. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353.
19. American Academy of Neurology. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: [RETIRED]. http://n.neurology.org/content/78/17/1346. Accessed April 29, 2018.
20. Man LX. Complementary and alternative medicine for allergic rhinitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17:226-231.
21. Guo R, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;99:483-495.
22. Daniel O, Mauskop A. Nutraceuticals in acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016; 18:14.
23. Chacko SM, Thambi PT, Kuttan R, et al. Beneficial effects of green tea: a literature review. Chin Med. 2010;6:13.
24. Naghma K, Hasan M. Tea polyphenols for health promotion. Life Sci. 2007;81:519-533.
25. Okello EJ, McDougall GJ, Kumar S, et al. In vitro protective effects of colon-available extract of Camellia sinensis (tea) against hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid (Aβ((1-42))) induced cytotoxicity in differentiated PC12 cells. Phytomedicine. 2011;18:691-696.
26. Schmidt A, Hammann F, Wölnerhanssen B, et al. Green tea extract enhances parieto-frontal connectivity during working memory processing. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014;231: 3879-3888.
27. Tomata Y, Sugiyama K, Kaiho Y, et al. Green tea consumption and the risk of incident dementia in elderly Japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;24: 881-889.
28. Takechi R, Alfonso H, Hiramatsu N, et al. Elevated plasma and urinary concentrations of green tea catechins associated with improved plasma lipid profile in healthy Japanese women. Nutr Res. 2016;36:220-226.
29. Kim A, Chiu A, Barone MK, et al. Green tea catechins decrease total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011; 111:1720-1729.
30. Zhang C, Qin YY, Wei X, et al. Tea consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes and total mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:103-113.
31. Imai K, Suga K, Nakachi K. Cancer-preventive effects of drinking green tea among a Japanese population. Prev Med. 1997;26:769-775.
32. Yuan JM. Cancer prevention by green tea: evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(6 suppl): 1676S-1681S.
33. Kurahashi N, Sasazuki S, Iwasaki M, et al. Green tea consumption and prostate cancer risk in Japanese men: a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:71-77.
34. Iso H, Date C, Wakai K, et al. The relationship between green tea and total caffeine intake and risk for self-reported type 2 diabetes among Japanese adults. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144:554-562.
35. Kim HM, Kim J. The effects of green tea on obesity and type 2 diabetes. Diab Metab J. 2013;37:173-175.
36. Yang J, Mao Q, Xu H, et al. Tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005632.
37. Liu K, Zhou R, Wang B, et al. Effect of green tea on glucose control and insulin sensitivity: a meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:340-348.
38. Isomura T, Suzuki S, Origasa H, et al. Liver-related safety assessment of green tea extracts in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:1340.
39. Tillisch K. Complementary and alternative medicine for gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Med (Lond). 2007;7:224-227.
40. Knowlton WM, McKemy DD. TRPM8: from cold to cancer, peppermint to pain. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011;12:68-77.
41. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Lacy BE, et al. Task Force on the Management of Functional Bowel Disorders. American College of Gastroenterology monograph on the management of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(suppl 1):S2-S26.
42. Ruepert L, Quartero AO, de Wit NJ, et al. Bulking agents, antispasmodics and antidepressants for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD003460.
43. Khanna R, MacDonald JK, Levesque BG. Peppermint oil for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:505-512.
44. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. A novel delivery system of peppermint oil is an effective therapy for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:560-571.
45. Holtmann G, Haag S, Adam B, et al. Effects of a fixed combination of peppermint oil and caraway oil on symptoms and quality of life in patients suffering from functional dyspepsia. Phytomedicine. 2003;10(suppl 4):56-57.
46. Madisch A, Heydenreich CJ, Wieland V, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with a fixed peppermint oil and caraway oil combination preparation as compared to cisapride. A multicenter, reference-controlled double-blind equivalence study. Arzneimittelforschung. 1999;49:925-932.
47. Asao T, Kuwano H, Ide M, et al. Spasmolytic effect of peppermint oil in barium during double-contrast barium enema compared with Buscopan. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:301-305.
48. Sparks MJ, O’Sullivan P, Herrington AA, et al. Does peppermint oil relieve spasm during barium enema? Br J Radiol. 1995;68:841-843.
49. Akhavan Amjadi M, Mojab F, Kamranpour SB. The effect of peppermint oil on symptomatic treatment of pruritus in pregnant women. Iran J Pharm Res. 2012;11:1073-1077.
50. St Cyr A, Chen A, Bradley KC, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of STOPAIN for a migraine attack. Front Neurol. 2015;6:11.
51. Borhani Haghighi A, Motazedian S, Rezaii R, et al. Cutaneous application of menthol 10% solution as an abortive treatment of migraine without aura: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossed-over study. Int J Clin Pract. 2010; 64:451-456.
52. Gobel H, Fresenius J, Heinze A, et al. Effectiveness of oleum menthae piperitae and paracetamol in therapy of headache of the tension type [German]. Nervenarzt. 1996;67:672-681.
53. Schattner P, Randerson D. Tiger Balm as a treatment of tension headache. A clinical trial in general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 1996;25:216-220.
54. Johar P, Grover V, Topp R, et al. A comparison of topical menthol to ice on pain, evoked tetanic and voluntary force during delayed onset muscle soreness. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7:314-322.
55. Topp R, Brosky JA Jr, Pieschel D. The effect of either topical menthol or a placebo on functioning and knee pain among patients with knee OA. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36:92-99.
56. Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Brandt M, et al. Acute effect of topical menthol on chronic pain in slaughterhouse workers with carpal tunnel syndrome: triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:310913.
57. Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of mentha piperita (peppermint) oil, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf extract, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf, and mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf water. Int J Toxicol. 2001;20(suppl 3):61-73.
58. Klingler B, Chadhary S. Peppermint oil. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:1027-1030.
59. Nath SS, Pandey C, Roy D. A near fatal case of high dose peppermint oil ingestion—lessons learnt. Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56:582-584.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone is with the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Gary Tsai is with Torrance Memorial Physician Network in California.

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article, which originally appeared in The Journal of Family Practice (2018;67[1]:10-16).

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 28(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
22-28
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone is with the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Gary Tsai is with Torrance Memorial Physician Network in California.

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article, which originally appeared in The Journal of Family Practice (2018;67[1]:10-16).

Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone is with the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Gary Tsai is with Torrance Memorial Physician Network in California.

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article, which originally appeared in The Journal of Family Practice (2018;67[1]:10-16).

Article PDF
Article PDF

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, a division of the National Institutes of Medicine, estimates that 38% of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine (including 17.7% who say they use “natural products”).1 Despite the popularity of these products, many providers remain skeptical—and for good reason. Enthusiasts may offer dramatic anecdotes to “prove” their supplements’ worth, but little scientific support is available for most herbal remedies. There are, however, exceptions—capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint—as this review of the medical literature reveals.

Worth noting as you consider this—or any—review of herbals is that while there is limited scientific evidence to establish the safety and efficacy of most herbal products, they are nonetheless freely sold without FDA approval because, under current regulations, they are considered dietary supplements. That legal designation means companies can manufacture, sell, and market herbs without first demonstrating safety and efficacy, as is required for pharmaceutical drugs. Because herbal medications do not require the same testing through the large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) required for pharmaceuticals, evidence is often based on smaller RCTs and other studies of lower overall quality. Despite these limitations, we believe it’s worth keeping an open mind about the value of evidence-based herbal and botanical treatments.

CAPSAICIN

Capsaicin, an active compound in chili peppers, provokes a burning sensation but also has a long history of use in pain treatment.2 Qutenza, an FDA-approved, chemically synthesized 8% capsaicin patch, is identical to the naturally occurring molecule.2 Topical capsaicin exerts its therapeutic effect by rapidly depleting substance P, thus reducing the transmission of pain from C fibers to higher neurologic centers in the area of administration.3

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown capsaicin is effective for various painful conditions, including peripheral diabetic neuropathy, osteoarthritis (OA), low back pain (LBP), and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).

Peripheral neuropathy. A Cochrane review of six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least six weeks’ duration using topical 8% capsaicin to treat PHN and HIV-associated neuropathy concluded that high-concentration topical capsaicin provided more relief in patients with high pain levels than control patients who received a subtherapeutic (0.04%) capsaicin cream. Number-needed-to-treat values were between 8 and 12. Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported enough to calculate a number needed to harm.4

OA. In randomized trials, capsaicin provided mild-to-moderate efficacy for patients with hand and knee OA, when compared with placebo.5-7 A systematic review of capsaicin for all osteoarthritic conditions noted that there was consistent evidence that capsaicin gel was effective for OA.8 However, a 2013 Cochrane review of only knee OA noted that capsicum extract did not provide significant clinical improvement for pain or function and resulted in a significant number of adverse events.9

LBP. Based on a 2014 Cochrane review of three trials (755 subjects) of moderate quality, capsicum frutescens cream or plaster appeared more efficacious than placebo in people with chronic LBP.10 Based on current (low-quality) evidence in one trial, however, it’s not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for acute LBP than placebo.10

PHN. Topical capsaicin is an FDA-approved treatment for PHN. A review and cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that 8% capsaicin had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) used to treat PHN.11 The cost of the capsaicin patch was similar to a topical lidocaine patch and oral products for PHN.11 A meta-analysis of seven RCTs indicated that 8% topical capsaicin was superior to the low-dose capsaicin patch for relieving pain associated with PHN.12

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

Very few toxic effects have been reported during a half-century of capsaicin use. Those that have been reported are mainly limited to mild local reactions.2 The most common adverse effect of topical capsaicin is local irritation (burning, stinging, and erythema), which was reported in approximately 40% of patients.6 Nevertheless, more than 90% of the subjects in clinical studies were able to complete the studies, and pain rapidly resolved after patch removal.2 Washing with soap and water may help prevent the compound from spreading to other parts of the body unintentionally.

The safety of the patch has been demonstrated with repeated dosing every three months for up to one year. However, the long-term risks of chronic capsaicin use and its effect on epidermal innervation are uncertain.5

 

The bottom line

Capsaicin appears to be an effective treatment for neuropathy and chronic LBP. It is FDA approved for the treatment of PHN. It may also benefit patients with OA and acute LBP. Serious adverse effects are uncommon with topical use. Common adverse effects include burning pain and irritation in the area of application, which can be intense and cause discontinuation.2

Continue to: BUTTERBUR

 

 

BUTTERBUR

Petasites hybridus, also known as butterbur, is a member of the daisy family, Asteraceae, and is a perennial plant found throughout Europe and Asia.13 It was used as a remedy for ulcers, wounds, and inflammation in ancient Greece. Its calcium channel–blocking effects may counteract vasoconstriction and play a role in preventing hyperexcitation of neurons.14 Sesquiterpenes, the pharmacologically active compounds in butterbur, have strong anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory effects through lipoxygenase and leukotriene inhibition.14

Migraine headache. Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis. Several studies have shown butterbur to significantly reduce the number of migraine attacks per month when compared with placebo. In a small, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study on the efficacy and tolerability of a special butterbur root extract (Petadolex) for the prevention of migraine, response rate was 45% in the butterbur group vs 15% in the placebo group. Butterbur was well tolerated.15 Similar results were found in another RCT in which butterbur 75 mg bid significantly reduced migraine frequency by 48%, compared with 26% for the placebo group.16 Butterbur was well tolerated in this study, too, and no serious adverse events occurred. Findings suggest that 75 mg bid may be a good option for migraine prevention, given the agent’s safety profile.

Petadolex may also be a good option in pediatric migraine. A 2005 study in children and adolescents found that 77% of patients experienced a reduction in attacks by at least 50% with butterbur. Patients were treated with 50 mg to 150 mg over four months.17

In their 2012 guidelines for migraine prevention, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society gave butterbur a Level A recommendation, concluding that butterbur should be offered to patients with migraine to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks.18 However, the AAN changed its position in 2015, redacting the recommendation due to serious safety concerns.19

Allergic rhinitis. Although the data are not convincing, some studies have shown that butterbur may be beneficial for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.20,21

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

While the butterbur plant itself contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PA), which are hepatotoxic and carcinogenic, extracts of butterbur root that are almost completely free from these alkaloids are available. Patients who choose to use butterbur should be advised to use only products that are certified and labeled PA free.

Petadolex, the medication used in migraine studies, was initially approved by the German health regulatory authority, but approval was later withdrawn due to concerns about liver toxicity.22 In 2012, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency withdrew all butterbur products from the market due to associated cases of liver toxicity.22 Butterbur products are still available in the US market, and the risks and benefits should be discussed with all patients considering this treatment. Liver function monitoring is recommended for all patients using butterbur.22

The herb can also cause dyspepsia, headache, itchy eyes, gastrointestinal symptoms, asthma, fatigue, and drowsiness. Additionally, people who are allergic to ragweed and daisies may have allergic reactions to butterbur. Eructation (belching) occurred in 7% of patients in a pediatric study.17

 

The bottom line

Butterbur appears to be efficacious for migraine prophylaxis, but long-term safety is unknown and serious concerns exist for liver toxicity.

Continue to: GREEN TEA

 

 

GREEN TEA

Most tea leaves come from the Camellia sinensis bush, but green and black tea are processed differently to produce different end products.23 It is estimated that green tea accounts for approximately a quarter of all tea consumption and is most commonly consumed in Asian countries.23 The health-promoting effects of green tea are mainly attributed to its polyphenol content.24 Of the many types of tea, green tea has the highest concentration of polyphenols, including catechins, which are powerful antioxidants.23,24 Green tea has been used in traditional Chinese and Indian medicine to control bleeding, improve digestion, and promote overall health.23

Dementia. Green tea polyphenols may enhance cognition and may protect against the development of dementia. In-vitro studies have shown that green tea reduces hydrogen peroxide and ß-amyloid peptides, which are significant in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.25 A 12-subject double-blind study found green tea increased working memory and had an impact on frontoparietal brain connections.26 Furthermore, a cohort study with 13,645 Japanese participants over a five-year period found that frequent green tea consumption (> 5 cups per day) was associated with a lower risk for dementia.27 Additional studies are needed, but green tea may be useful in the treatment or prevention of dementia in the future.

Coronary artery disease. In one study, green tea plasma and urinary concen­trations were associated with plasma biomarkers of cardiovascular disease and ­diabetes.28 In one review, the consumption of green tea was associated with a statis­tically significant reduction in LDL cholesterol.29 Furthermore, a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies concluded that increased tea consumption (of any type) is associated with a reduced risk for coronary heart disease, cardiac death, stroke, and total mortality.30

Cancer. Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk for cancer, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent. Studies have shown that cancer rates tend to be lower in those who consume higher levels of green tea.31,32 Whether this can be attributed solely to green tea remains debatable. Several other studies have shown that polyphenols in green tea can inhibit the growth of cancer cells, but the exact mechanism by which tea interacts with cancerous cells is unknown.23

Several population-based studies have been performed, mostly in Japan, which showed green tea consumption reduced the risk for cancer. Fewer prostate cancer cases have been reported in men who consume green tea.33 While studies have been performed to determine whether green tea has effects on pancreatic, esophageal, ovarian, breast, bladder, and colorectal cancer, the evidence remains inadequate.32

Diabetes. Green tea has been shown in several studies to have a beneficial effect on diabetes. A retrospective Japanese cohort study showed that those who consumed green tea were one-third less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.34 A 10-year study from Taiwan found lower body fat and smaller waist circumference in those who consumed green tea regularly.35 A 2014 meta-analysis and systematic review of tea (any type) consumption and the risk for diabetes concluded that three or more cups of tea per day was associated with a lower risk for diabetes.36 Another meta-analysis of 17 RCTs focused on green tea concluded that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.37

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

There have been concerns about potential hepatotoxicity induced by green tea intake.38 However, a systematic review of 34 RCTs on liver-related adverse events from green tea showed only a slight elevation in liver function tests; no serious liver-related adverse events were reported.38 This review suggested that liver-related adverse events after intake of green tea extracts are rare.38

Consuming green tea in the diet may lower the risk for adverse effects since the concentration consumed is generally much lower than that found in extracts.

Contraindications to drinking green tea are few. Individuals with caffeine sensitivities could experience insomnia, anxiety, irritability, or upset stomach. Additionally, patients who are taking anticoagulation drugs, such as warfarin, should avoid green tea due to its vitamin K content, which can counter the effects of warfarin. Pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with heart problems or high blood pressure, kidney or liver problems, stomach ulcers, or anxiety disorders should use caution with green tea consumption.

 

The bottom line

Green tea consumption in the diet appears to be safe and may have beneficial effects on weight, dementia, and risk for diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Patients may want to consider drinking green tea as part of a healthy diet, in combination with exercise.

Continue to: PEPPERMINT

 

 

PEPPERMINT

Mentha piperita, also known as peppermint, is a hybrid between water mint and spearmint. It is found throughout Europe and North America and is commonly used in tea and toothpaste and as a flavoring for gum. Menthol and methyl salicylate are the main active ingredients in peppermint, and peppermint has calcium channel–blocker effects.39 Menthol has been shown to help regulate cold and pain sensation through the TRPM8 receptor.40 The peppermint herb is used both orally and topically, and has been studied in the treatment of multiple conditions.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). It appears that peppermint inhibits spontaneous peristaltic activity, which reduces gastric emptying, decreases basal tone in the gastrointestinal tract, and slows down peristalsis in the gut.39

The American College of Gastroenterology guidelines currently note that there is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.41 A Cochrane review concluded that peppermint appears to be beneficial for IBS-related symptoms and pain.42 In a systematic review of nine studies from 2014, peppermint oil was found to be more effective than placebo for IBS symptoms such as pain, bloating, gas, and diarrhea.43 The review also indicated that peppermint oil is safe, with heartburn being the most common complaint.43 A 2016 study also found that triple-coated microspheres containing peppermint oil reduced the frequency and intensity of IBS symptoms.44

Non-ulcer dyspepsia. In combination with caraway oil, peppermint oil can be used to reduce symptoms of non-ulcer dyspepsia.45,46 A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study found that 43.3% of subjects improved with a peppermint-caraway oil combination after eight weeks, compared with 3.5% receiving placebo.46

Barium enema–related colonic spasm. Peppermint can relax the lower esophageal sphincter, and it has been shown to be useful as an antispasmodic agent for barium enema–related colonic spasm.47,48

Itching/skin irritation. Peppermint, when applied topically, has been used to calm pruritus and relieve irritation and inflammation. It has a soothing and cooling effect on the skin. At least one study found it to be effective in the treatment of pruritus gravidarum, although the study population consisted of only 96 subjects.49

Migraine headache. Initial small trials suggest that menthol is likely beneficial for migraine headaches. A pilot trial of 25 patients treated with topical menthol 6% gel for an acute migraine attack showed a significant improvement in headache intensity two hours after gel application.50 In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 35 patients, a menthol 10% solution was shown to be more efficacious as abortive treatment of migraine headaches than placebo.51

Tension headache. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study, topical peppermint oil showed a significant clinical reduction in tension headache pain.52 Another small, randomized, double-blind trial showed that tiger balm (containing menthol as the main ingredient) also produced statistically significant improvement in tension headache discomfort compared with placebo.53

Continue to: Musculoskeletal pain

 

 

Musculoskeletal pain. A small study comparing topical menthol to ice for muscle soreness noted decreased perceived discomfort with menthol.54 Menthol has also been shown to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.55

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A triple-blind RCT concluded that topical menthol acutely reduced pain intensity in slaughterhouse workers with CTS, and it should be considered as an effective nonsystemic alternative to regular analgesics in the workplace management of chronic and neuropathic pain.56

Adverse effects

Peppermint appears to be safe for most adults when used in small doses, and serious adverse effects are rare.43,57 While peppermint tea appears to be safe in moderate-to-large amounts, people allergic to plants in the peppermint family (eg, mint, thyme, sage, rosemary, marjoram, basil, lavender) may experience allergic reactions with swelling, wheals, or erythema. Peppermint may also cause heartburn due to relaxation of the cardiac sphincter.

Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, flushing, and headache.58 The herb may also be both hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic at extremely high doses.59 Other considerations for women are that it can trigger menstruation and should be avoided during pregnancy. Due to uncertain efficacy in this population, peppermint oil should not be used on the face of infants, young children, or pregnant women.58,59

The bottom line

Peppermint appears to be safe and well tolerated. It is useful in alleviating IBS symptoms and may be effective in the treatment of non-ulcerative dyspepsia, musculoskeletal pain, headache, and CTS.54,55

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, a division of the National Institutes of Medicine, estimates that 38% of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine (including 17.7% who say they use “natural products”).1 Despite the popularity of these products, many providers remain skeptical—and for good reason. Enthusiasts may offer dramatic anecdotes to “prove” their supplements’ worth, but little scientific support is available for most herbal remedies. There are, however, exceptions—capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint—as this review of the medical literature reveals.

Worth noting as you consider this—or any—review of herbals is that while there is limited scientific evidence to establish the safety and efficacy of most herbal products, they are nonetheless freely sold without FDA approval because, under current regulations, they are considered dietary supplements. That legal designation means companies can manufacture, sell, and market herbs without first demonstrating safety and efficacy, as is required for pharmaceutical drugs. Because herbal medications do not require the same testing through the large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) required for pharmaceuticals, evidence is often based on smaller RCTs and other studies of lower overall quality. Despite these limitations, we believe it’s worth keeping an open mind about the value of evidence-based herbal and botanical treatments.

CAPSAICIN

Capsaicin, an active compound in chili peppers, provokes a burning sensation but also has a long history of use in pain treatment.2 Qutenza, an FDA-approved, chemically synthesized 8% capsaicin patch, is identical to the naturally occurring molecule.2 Topical capsaicin exerts its therapeutic effect by rapidly depleting substance P, thus reducing the transmission of pain from C fibers to higher neurologic centers in the area of administration.3

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown capsaicin is effective for various painful conditions, including peripheral diabetic neuropathy, osteoarthritis (OA), low back pain (LBP), and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).

Peripheral neuropathy. A Cochrane review of six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least six weeks’ duration using topical 8% capsaicin to treat PHN and HIV-associated neuropathy concluded that high-concentration topical capsaicin provided more relief in patients with high pain levels than control patients who received a subtherapeutic (0.04%) capsaicin cream. Number-needed-to-treat values were between 8 and 12. Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported enough to calculate a number needed to harm.4

OA. In randomized trials, capsaicin provided mild-to-moderate efficacy for patients with hand and knee OA, when compared with placebo.5-7 A systematic review of capsaicin for all osteoarthritic conditions noted that there was consistent evidence that capsaicin gel was effective for OA.8 However, a 2013 Cochrane review of only knee OA noted that capsicum extract did not provide significant clinical improvement for pain or function and resulted in a significant number of adverse events.9

LBP. Based on a 2014 Cochrane review of three trials (755 subjects) of moderate quality, capsicum frutescens cream or plaster appeared more efficacious than placebo in people with chronic LBP.10 Based on current (low-quality) evidence in one trial, however, it’s not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for acute LBP than placebo.10

PHN. Topical capsaicin is an FDA-approved treatment for PHN. A review and cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that 8% capsaicin had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) used to treat PHN.11 The cost of the capsaicin patch was similar to a topical lidocaine patch and oral products for PHN.11 A meta-analysis of seven RCTs indicated that 8% topical capsaicin was superior to the low-dose capsaicin patch for relieving pain associated with PHN.12

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

Very few toxic effects have been reported during a half-century of capsaicin use. Those that have been reported are mainly limited to mild local reactions.2 The most common adverse effect of topical capsaicin is local irritation (burning, stinging, and erythema), which was reported in approximately 40% of patients.6 Nevertheless, more than 90% of the subjects in clinical studies were able to complete the studies, and pain rapidly resolved after patch removal.2 Washing with soap and water may help prevent the compound from spreading to other parts of the body unintentionally.

The safety of the patch has been demonstrated with repeated dosing every three months for up to one year. However, the long-term risks of chronic capsaicin use and its effect on epidermal innervation are uncertain.5

 

The bottom line

Capsaicin appears to be an effective treatment for neuropathy and chronic LBP. It is FDA approved for the treatment of PHN. It may also benefit patients with OA and acute LBP. Serious adverse effects are uncommon with topical use. Common adverse effects include burning pain and irritation in the area of application, which can be intense and cause discontinuation.2

Continue to: BUTTERBUR

 

 

BUTTERBUR

Petasites hybridus, also known as butterbur, is a member of the daisy family, Asteraceae, and is a perennial plant found throughout Europe and Asia.13 It was used as a remedy for ulcers, wounds, and inflammation in ancient Greece. Its calcium channel–blocking effects may counteract vasoconstriction and play a role in preventing hyperexcitation of neurons.14 Sesquiterpenes, the pharmacologically active compounds in butterbur, have strong anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory effects through lipoxygenase and leukotriene inhibition.14

Migraine headache. Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis. Several studies have shown butterbur to significantly reduce the number of migraine attacks per month when compared with placebo. In a small, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study on the efficacy and tolerability of a special butterbur root extract (Petadolex) for the prevention of migraine, response rate was 45% in the butterbur group vs 15% in the placebo group. Butterbur was well tolerated.15 Similar results were found in another RCT in which butterbur 75 mg bid significantly reduced migraine frequency by 48%, compared with 26% for the placebo group.16 Butterbur was well tolerated in this study, too, and no serious adverse events occurred. Findings suggest that 75 mg bid may be a good option for migraine prevention, given the agent’s safety profile.

Petadolex may also be a good option in pediatric migraine. A 2005 study in children and adolescents found that 77% of patients experienced a reduction in attacks by at least 50% with butterbur. Patients were treated with 50 mg to 150 mg over four months.17

In their 2012 guidelines for migraine prevention, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society gave butterbur a Level A recommendation, concluding that butterbur should be offered to patients with migraine to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks.18 However, the AAN changed its position in 2015, redacting the recommendation due to serious safety concerns.19

Allergic rhinitis. Although the data are not convincing, some studies have shown that butterbur may be beneficial for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.20,21

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

While the butterbur plant itself contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PA), which are hepatotoxic and carcinogenic, extracts of butterbur root that are almost completely free from these alkaloids are available. Patients who choose to use butterbur should be advised to use only products that are certified and labeled PA free.

Petadolex, the medication used in migraine studies, was initially approved by the German health regulatory authority, but approval was later withdrawn due to concerns about liver toxicity.22 In 2012, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency withdrew all butterbur products from the market due to associated cases of liver toxicity.22 Butterbur products are still available in the US market, and the risks and benefits should be discussed with all patients considering this treatment. Liver function monitoring is recommended for all patients using butterbur.22

The herb can also cause dyspepsia, headache, itchy eyes, gastrointestinal symptoms, asthma, fatigue, and drowsiness. Additionally, people who are allergic to ragweed and daisies may have allergic reactions to butterbur. Eructation (belching) occurred in 7% of patients in a pediatric study.17

 

The bottom line

Butterbur appears to be efficacious for migraine prophylaxis, but long-term safety is unknown and serious concerns exist for liver toxicity.

Continue to: GREEN TEA

 

 

GREEN TEA

Most tea leaves come from the Camellia sinensis bush, but green and black tea are processed differently to produce different end products.23 It is estimated that green tea accounts for approximately a quarter of all tea consumption and is most commonly consumed in Asian countries.23 The health-promoting effects of green tea are mainly attributed to its polyphenol content.24 Of the many types of tea, green tea has the highest concentration of polyphenols, including catechins, which are powerful antioxidants.23,24 Green tea has been used in traditional Chinese and Indian medicine to control bleeding, improve digestion, and promote overall health.23

Dementia. Green tea polyphenols may enhance cognition and may protect against the development of dementia. In-vitro studies have shown that green tea reduces hydrogen peroxide and ß-amyloid peptides, which are significant in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.25 A 12-subject double-blind study found green tea increased working memory and had an impact on frontoparietal brain connections.26 Furthermore, a cohort study with 13,645 Japanese participants over a five-year period found that frequent green tea consumption (> 5 cups per day) was associated with a lower risk for dementia.27 Additional studies are needed, but green tea may be useful in the treatment or prevention of dementia in the future.

Coronary artery disease. In one study, green tea plasma and urinary concen­trations were associated with plasma biomarkers of cardiovascular disease and ­diabetes.28 In one review, the consumption of green tea was associated with a statis­tically significant reduction in LDL cholesterol.29 Furthermore, a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies concluded that increased tea consumption (of any type) is associated with a reduced risk for coronary heart disease, cardiac death, stroke, and total mortality.30

Cancer. Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk for cancer, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent. Studies have shown that cancer rates tend to be lower in those who consume higher levels of green tea.31,32 Whether this can be attributed solely to green tea remains debatable. Several other studies have shown that polyphenols in green tea can inhibit the growth of cancer cells, but the exact mechanism by which tea interacts with cancerous cells is unknown.23

Several population-based studies have been performed, mostly in Japan, which showed green tea consumption reduced the risk for cancer. Fewer prostate cancer cases have been reported in men who consume green tea.33 While studies have been performed to determine whether green tea has effects on pancreatic, esophageal, ovarian, breast, bladder, and colorectal cancer, the evidence remains inadequate.32

Diabetes. Green tea has been shown in several studies to have a beneficial effect on diabetes. A retrospective Japanese cohort study showed that those who consumed green tea were one-third less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.34 A 10-year study from Taiwan found lower body fat and smaller waist circumference in those who consumed green tea regularly.35 A 2014 meta-analysis and systematic review of tea (any type) consumption and the risk for diabetes concluded that three or more cups of tea per day was associated with a lower risk for diabetes.36 Another meta-analysis of 17 RCTs focused on green tea concluded that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.37

Continue to: Adverse effects

 

 

Adverse effects

There have been concerns about potential hepatotoxicity induced by green tea intake.38 However, a systematic review of 34 RCTs on liver-related adverse events from green tea showed only a slight elevation in liver function tests; no serious liver-related adverse events were reported.38 This review suggested that liver-related adverse events after intake of green tea extracts are rare.38

Consuming green tea in the diet may lower the risk for adverse effects since the concentration consumed is generally much lower than that found in extracts.

Contraindications to drinking green tea are few. Individuals with caffeine sensitivities could experience insomnia, anxiety, irritability, or upset stomach. Additionally, patients who are taking anticoagulation drugs, such as warfarin, should avoid green tea due to its vitamin K content, which can counter the effects of warfarin. Pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with heart problems or high blood pressure, kidney or liver problems, stomach ulcers, or anxiety disorders should use caution with green tea consumption.

 

The bottom line

Green tea consumption in the diet appears to be safe and may have beneficial effects on weight, dementia, and risk for diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Patients may want to consider drinking green tea as part of a healthy diet, in combination with exercise.

Continue to: PEPPERMINT

 

 

PEPPERMINT

Mentha piperita, also known as peppermint, is a hybrid between water mint and spearmint. It is found throughout Europe and North America and is commonly used in tea and toothpaste and as a flavoring for gum. Menthol and methyl salicylate are the main active ingredients in peppermint, and peppermint has calcium channel–blocker effects.39 Menthol has been shown to help regulate cold and pain sensation through the TRPM8 receptor.40 The peppermint herb is used both orally and topically, and has been studied in the treatment of multiple conditions.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). It appears that peppermint inhibits spontaneous peristaltic activity, which reduces gastric emptying, decreases basal tone in the gastrointestinal tract, and slows down peristalsis in the gut.39

The American College of Gastroenterology guidelines currently note that there is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.41 A Cochrane review concluded that peppermint appears to be beneficial for IBS-related symptoms and pain.42 In a systematic review of nine studies from 2014, peppermint oil was found to be more effective than placebo for IBS symptoms such as pain, bloating, gas, and diarrhea.43 The review also indicated that peppermint oil is safe, with heartburn being the most common complaint.43 A 2016 study also found that triple-coated microspheres containing peppermint oil reduced the frequency and intensity of IBS symptoms.44

Non-ulcer dyspepsia. In combination with caraway oil, peppermint oil can be used to reduce symptoms of non-ulcer dyspepsia.45,46 A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study found that 43.3% of subjects improved with a peppermint-caraway oil combination after eight weeks, compared with 3.5% receiving placebo.46

Barium enema–related colonic spasm. Peppermint can relax the lower esophageal sphincter, and it has been shown to be useful as an antispasmodic agent for barium enema–related colonic spasm.47,48

Itching/skin irritation. Peppermint, when applied topically, has been used to calm pruritus and relieve irritation and inflammation. It has a soothing and cooling effect on the skin. At least one study found it to be effective in the treatment of pruritus gravidarum, although the study population consisted of only 96 subjects.49

Migraine headache. Initial small trials suggest that menthol is likely beneficial for migraine headaches. A pilot trial of 25 patients treated with topical menthol 6% gel for an acute migraine attack showed a significant improvement in headache intensity two hours after gel application.50 In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 35 patients, a menthol 10% solution was shown to be more efficacious as abortive treatment of migraine headaches than placebo.51

Tension headache. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study, topical peppermint oil showed a significant clinical reduction in tension headache pain.52 Another small, randomized, double-blind trial showed that tiger balm (containing menthol as the main ingredient) also produced statistically significant improvement in tension headache discomfort compared with placebo.53

Continue to: Musculoskeletal pain

 

 

Musculoskeletal pain. A small study comparing topical menthol to ice for muscle soreness noted decreased perceived discomfort with menthol.54 Menthol has also been shown to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.55

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A triple-blind RCT concluded that topical menthol acutely reduced pain intensity in slaughterhouse workers with CTS, and it should be considered as an effective nonsystemic alternative to regular analgesics in the workplace management of chronic and neuropathic pain.56

Adverse effects

Peppermint appears to be safe for most adults when used in small doses, and serious adverse effects are rare.43,57 While peppermint tea appears to be safe in moderate-to-large amounts, people allergic to plants in the peppermint family (eg, mint, thyme, sage, rosemary, marjoram, basil, lavender) may experience allergic reactions with swelling, wheals, or erythema. Peppermint may also cause heartburn due to relaxation of the cardiac sphincter.

Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, flushing, and headache.58 The herb may also be both hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic at extremely high doses.59 Other considerations for women are that it can trigger menstruation and should be avoided during pregnancy. Due to uncertain efficacy in this population, peppermint oil should not be used on the face of infants, young children, or pregnant women.58,59

The bottom line

Peppermint appears to be safe and well tolerated. It is useful in alleviating IBS symptoms and may be effective in the treatment of non-ulcerative dyspepsia, musculoskeletal pain, headache, and CTS.54,55

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed April 19, 2018.
2. Wallace M, Pappagallo M. Qutenza: a capsaicin 8% patch for the management of postherpetic neuralgia. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11:15-27.
3. Rains C, Bryson HM. Topical capsaicin. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic potential in post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy and osteoarthritis. Drugs Aging. 1995;7:317-328.
4. Derry S, Sven-Rice A, Cole P, et al. Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD007393.
5. Mason L, Moore RA, Derry S, et al. Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain. BMJ. 2004;328:991.
6. Deal CL, Schnitzer TJ, Lipstein E, et al. Treatment of arthritis with topical capsaicin: a double-blind trial. Clin Ther. 1991; 13:383.
7. McCarthy GM, McCarty DJ. Effect of topical capsaicin in the therapy of painful osteoarthritis of the hands. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:604.
8. De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E, et al; Arthritis Research UK Working Group on Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50:911-920.
9. Cameron M, Chrubasik S. Topical herbal therapies for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5): CD010538.
10. Oltean H, Robbins C, van Tulder MW, et al. Herbal medicine for low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12): CD004504.
11. Armstrong EP, Malone DC, McCarberg B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:939-950.
12. Mou J, Paillard F, Turnbull B, et al. Efficacy of Qutenza (capsaicin) 8% patch for neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis of the Qutenza Clinical Trials Database. Pain. 2013;154:1632-1639.
13. Sun-Edelstein C, Mauskop A. Alternative headache treatments: nutraceuticals, behavioral and physical treatments. Headache. 2011;51:469-483.
14. D’Andrea G, Cevoli S, Cologno D. Herbal therapy in migraine. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(suppl 1):135-140.
15. Diener HC, Rahlfs VW, Danesch U. The first placebo-controlled trial of a special butterbur root extract for the prevention of migraine: reanalysis of efficacy criteria. Eur Neurol. 2004;51:89-97.
16. Lipton RB, Göbel H, Einhäupl KM, et al. Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology. 2004;63:2240-2244.
17. Pothmann R, Danesch U. Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract. Headache. 2005;45:196-203.
18. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353.
19. American Academy of Neurology. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: [RETIRED]. http://n.neurology.org/content/78/17/1346. Accessed April 29, 2018.
20. Man LX. Complementary and alternative medicine for allergic rhinitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17:226-231.
21. Guo R, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;99:483-495.
22. Daniel O, Mauskop A. Nutraceuticals in acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016; 18:14.
23. Chacko SM, Thambi PT, Kuttan R, et al. Beneficial effects of green tea: a literature review. Chin Med. 2010;6:13.
24. Naghma K, Hasan M. Tea polyphenols for health promotion. Life Sci. 2007;81:519-533.
25. Okello EJ, McDougall GJ, Kumar S, et al. In vitro protective effects of colon-available extract of Camellia sinensis (tea) against hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid (Aβ((1-42))) induced cytotoxicity in differentiated PC12 cells. Phytomedicine. 2011;18:691-696.
26. Schmidt A, Hammann F, Wölnerhanssen B, et al. Green tea extract enhances parieto-frontal connectivity during working memory processing. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014;231: 3879-3888.
27. Tomata Y, Sugiyama K, Kaiho Y, et al. Green tea consumption and the risk of incident dementia in elderly Japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;24: 881-889.
28. Takechi R, Alfonso H, Hiramatsu N, et al. Elevated plasma and urinary concentrations of green tea catechins associated with improved plasma lipid profile in healthy Japanese women. Nutr Res. 2016;36:220-226.
29. Kim A, Chiu A, Barone MK, et al. Green tea catechins decrease total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011; 111:1720-1729.
30. Zhang C, Qin YY, Wei X, et al. Tea consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes and total mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:103-113.
31. Imai K, Suga K, Nakachi K. Cancer-preventive effects of drinking green tea among a Japanese population. Prev Med. 1997;26:769-775.
32. Yuan JM. Cancer prevention by green tea: evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(6 suppl): 1676S-1681S.
33. Kurahashi N, Sasazuki S, Iwasaki M, et al. Green tea consumption and prostate cancer risk in Japanese men: a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:71-77.
34. Iso H, Date C, Wakai K, et al. The relationship between green tea and total caffeine intake and risk for self-reported type 2 diabetes among Japanese adults. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144:554-562.
35. Kim HM, Kim J. The effects of green tea on obesity and type 2 diabetes. Diab Metab J. 2013;37:173-175.
36. Yang J, Mao Q, Xu H, et al. Tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005632.
37. Liu K, Zhou R, Wang B, et al. Effect of green tea on glucose control and insulin sensitivity: a meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:340-348.
38. Isomura T, Suzuki S, Origasa H, et al. Liver-related safety assessment of green tea extracts in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:1340.
39. Tillisch K. Complementary and alternative medicine for gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Med (Lond). 2007;7:224-227.
40. Knowlton WM, McKemy DD. TRPM8: from cold to cancer, peppermint to pain. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011;12:68-77.
41. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Lacy BE, et al. Task Force on the Management of Functional Bowel Disorders. American College of Gastroenterology monograph on the management of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(suppl 1):S2-S26.
42. Ruepert L, Quartero AO, de Wit NJ, et al. Bulking agents, antispasmodics and antidepressants for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD003460.
43. Khanna R, MacDonald JK, Levesque BG. Peppermint oil for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:505-512.
44. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. A novel delivery system of peppermint oil is an effective therapy for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:560-571.
45. Holtmann G, Haag S, Adam B, et al. Effects of a fixed combination of peppermint oil and caraway oil on symptoms and quality of life in patients suffering from functional dyspepsia. Phytomedicine. 2003;10(suppl 4):56-57.
46. Madisch A, Heydenreich CJ, Wieland V, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with a fixed peppermint oil and caraway oil combination preparation as compared to cisapride. A multicenter, reference-controlled double-blind equivalence study. Arzneimittelforschung. 1999;49:925-932.
47. Asao T, Kuwano H, Ide M, et al. Spasmolytic effect of peppermint oil in barium during double-contrast barium enema compared with Buscopan. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:301-305.
48. Sparks MJ, O’Sullivan P, Herrington AA, et al. Does peppermint oil relieve spasm during barium enema? Br J Radiol. 1995;68:841-843.
49. Akhavan Amjadi M, Mojab F, Kamranpour SB. The effect of peppermint oil on symptomatic treatment of pruritus in pregnant women. Iran J Pharm Res. 2012;11:1073-1077.
50. St Cyr A, Chen A, Bradley KC, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of STOPAIN for a migraine attack. Front Neurol. 2015;6:11.
51. Borhani Haghighi A, Motazedian S, Rezaii R, et al. Cutaneous application of menthol 10% solution as an abortive treatment of migraine without aura: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossed-over study. Int J Clin Pract. 2010; 64:451-456.
52. Gobel H, Fresenius J, Heinze A, et al. Effectiveness of oleum menthae piperitae and paracetamol in therapy of headache of the tension type [German]. Nervenarzt. 1996;67:672-681.
53. Schattner P, Randerson D. Tiger Balm as a treatment of tension headache. A clinical trial in general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 1996;25:216-220.
54. Johar P, Grover V, Topp R, et al. A comparison of topical menthol to ice on pain, evoked tetanic and voluntary force during delayed onset muscle soreness. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7:314-322.
55. Topp R, Brosky JA Jr, Pieschel D. The effect of either topical menthol or a placebo on functioning and knee pain among patients with knee OA. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36:92-99.
56. Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Brandt M, et al. Acute effect of topical menthol on chronic pain in slaughterhouse workers with carpal tunnel syndrome: triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:310913.
57. Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of mentha piperita (peppermint) oil, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf extract, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf, and mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf water. Int J Toxicol. 2001;20(suppl 3):61-73.
58. Klingler B, Chadhary S. Peppermint oil. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:1027-1030.
59. Nath SS, Pandey C, Roy D. A near fatal case of high dose peppermint oil ingestion—lessons learnt. Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56:582-584.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed April 19, 2018.
2. Wallace M, Pappagallo M. Qutenza: a capsaicin 8% patch for the management of postherpetic neuralgia. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11:15-27.
3. Rains C, Bryson HM. Topical capsaicin. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic potential in post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy and osteoarthritis. Drugs Aging. 1995;7:317-328.
4. Derry S, Sven-Rice A, Cole P, et al. Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD007393.
5. Mason L, Moore RA, Derry S, et al. Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain. BMJ. 2004;328:991.
6. Deal CL, Schnitzer TJ, Lipstein E, et al. Treatment of arthritis with topical capsaicin: a double-blind trial. Clin Ther. 1991; 13:383.
7. McCarthy GM, McCarty DJ. Effect of topical capsaicin in the therapy of painful osteoarthritis of the hands. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:604.
8. De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E, et al; Arthritis Research UK Working Group on Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50:911-920.
9. Cameron M, Chrubasik S. Topical herbal therapies for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5): CD010538.
10. Oltean H, Robbins C, van Tulder MW, et al. Herbal medicine for low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12): CD004504.
11. Armstrong EP, Malone DC, McCarberg B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:939-950.
12. Mou J, Paillard F, Turnbull B, et al. Efficacy of Qutenza (capsaicin) 8% patch for neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis of the Qutenza Clinical Trials Database. Pain. 2013;154:1632-1639.
13. Sun-Edelstein C, Mauskop A. Alternative headache treatments: nutraceuticals, behavioral and physical treatments. Headache. 2011;51:469-483.
14. D’Andrea G, Cevoli S, Cologno D. Herbal therapy in migraine. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(suppl 1):135-140.
15. Diener HC, Rahlfs VW, Danesch U. The first placebo-controlled trial of a special butterbur root extract for the prevention of migraine: reanalysis of efficacy criteria. Eur Neurol. 2004;51:89-97.
16. Lipton RB, Göbel H, Einhäupl KM, et al. Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology. 2004;63:2240-2244.
17. Pothmann R, Danesch U. Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract. Headache. 2005;45:196-203.
18. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353.
19. American Academy of Neurology. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: [RETIRED]. http://n.neurology.org/content/78/17/1346. Accessed April 29, 2018.
20. Man LX. Complementary and alternative medicine for allergic rhinitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17:226-231.
21. Guo R, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;99:483-495.
22. Daniel O, Mauskop A. Nutraceuticals in acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016; 18:14.
23. Chacko SM, Thambi PT, Kuttan R, et al. Beneficial effects of green tea: a literature review. Chin Med. 2010;6:13.
24. Naghma K, Hasan M. Tea polyphenols for health promotion. Life Sci. 2007;81:519-533.
25. Okello EJ, McDougall GJ, Kumar S, et al. In vitro protective effects of colon-available extract of Camellia sinensis (tea) against hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid (Aβ((1-42))) induced cytotoxicity in differentiated PC12 cells. Phytomedicine. 2011;18:691-696.
26. Schmidt A, Hammann F, Wölnerhanssen B, et al. Green tea extract enhances parieto-frontal connectivity during working memory processing. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014;231: 3879-3888.
27. Tomata Y, Sugiyama K, Kaiho Y, et al. Green tea consumption and the risk of incident dementia in elderly Japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;24: 881-889.
28. Takechi R, Alfonso H, Hiramatsu N, et al. Elevated plasma and urinary concentrations of green tea catechins associated with improved plasma lipid profile in healthy Japanese women. Nutr Res. 2016;36:220-226.
29. Kim A, Chiu A, Barone MK, et al. Green tea catechins decrease total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011; 111:1720-1729.
30. Zhang C, Qin YY, Wei X, et al. Tea consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes and total mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:103-113.
31. Imai K, Suga K, Nakachi K. Cancer-preventive effects of drinking green tea among a Japanese population. Prev Med. 1997;26:769-775.
32. Yuan JM. Cancer prevention by green tea: evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(6 suppl): 1676S-1681S.
33. Kurahashi N, Sasazuki S, Iwasaki M, et al. Green tea consumption and prostate cancer risk in Japanese men: a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:71-77.
34. Iso H, Date C, Wakai K, et al. The relationship between green tea and total caffeine intake and risk for self-reported type 2 diabetes among Japanese adults. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144:554-562.
35. Kim HM, Kim J. The effects of green tea on obesity and type 2 diabetes. Diab Metab J. 2013;37:173-175.
36. Yang J, Mao Q, Xu H, et al. Tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005632.
37. Liu K, Zhou R, Wang B, et al. Effect of green tea on glucose control and insulin sensitivity: a meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:340-348.
38. Isomura T, Suzuki S, Origasa H, et al. Liver-related safety assessment of green tea extracts in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:1340.
39. Tillisch K. Complementary and alternative medicine for gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Med (Lond). 2007;7:224-227.
40. Knowlton WM, McKemy DD. TRPM8: from cold to cancer, peppermint to pain. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011;12:68-77.
41. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Lacy BE, et al. Task Force on the Management of Functional Bowel Disorders. American College of Gastroenterology monograph on the management of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(suppl 1):S2-S26.
42. Ruepert L, Quartero AO, de Wit NJ, et al. Bulking agents, antispasmodics and antidepressants for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD003460.
43. Khanna R, MacDonald JK, Levesque BG. Peppermint oil for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:505-512.
44. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. A novel delivery system of peppermint oil is an effective therapy for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:560-571.
45. Holtmann G, Haag S, Adam B, et al. Effects of a fixed combination of peppermint oil and caraway oil on symptoms and quality of life in patients suffering from functional dyspepsia. Phytomedicine. 2003;10(suppl 4):56-57.
46. Madisch A, Heydenreich CJ, Wieland V, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with a fixed peppermint oil and caraway oil combination preparation as compared to cisapride. A multicenter, reference-controlled double-blind equivalence study. Arzneimittelforschung. 1999;49:925-932.
47. Asao T, Kuwano H, Ide M, et al. Spasmolytic effect of peppermint oil in barium during double-contrast barium enema compared with Buscopan. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:301-305.
48. Sparks MJ, O’Sullivan P, Herrington AA, et al. Does peppermint oil relieve spasm during barium enema? Br J Radiol. 1995;68:841-843.
49. Akhavan Amjadi M, Mojab F, Kamranpour SB. The effect of peppermint oil on symptomatic treatment of pruritus in pregnant women. Iran J Pharm Res. 2012;11:1073-1077.
50. St Cyr A, Chen A, Bradley KC, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of STOPAIN for a migraine attack. Front Neurol. 2015;6:11.
51. Borhani Haghighi A, Motazedian S, Rezaii R, et al. Cutaneous application of menthol 10% solution as an abortive treatment of migraine without aura: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossed-over study. Int J Clin Pract. 2010; 64:451-456.
52. Gobel H, Fresenius J, Heinze A, et al. Effectiveness of oleum menthae piperitae and paracetamol in therapy of headache of the tension type [German]. Nervenarzt. 1996;67:672-681.
53. Schattner P, Randerson D. Tiger Balm as a treatment of tension headache. A clinical trial in general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 1996;25:216-220.
54. Johar P, Grover V, Topp R, et al. A comparison of topical menthol to ice on pain, evoked tetanic and voluntary force during delayed onset muscle soreness. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7:314-322.
55. Topp R, Brosky JA Jr, Pieschel D. The effect of either topical menthol or a placebo on functioning and knee pain among patients with knee OA. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36:92-99.
56. Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Brandt M, et al. Acute effect of topical menthol on chronic pain in slaughterhouse workers with carpal tunnel syndrome: triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:310913.
57. Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of mentha piperita (peppermint) oil, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf extract, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf, and mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf water. Int J Toxicol. 2001;20(suppl 3):61-73.
58. Klingler B, Chadhary S. Peppermint oil. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:1027-1030.
59. Nath SS, Pandey C, Roy D. A near fatal case of high dose peppermint oil ingestion—lessons learnt. Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56:582-584.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 28(5)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 28(5)
Page Number
22-28
Page Number
22-28
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The Evidence for Herbal and Botanical Remedies, Part 1
Display Headline
The Evidence for Herbal and Botanical Remedies, Part 1
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

The evidence for herbal and botanical remedies, Part 1

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:21
Display Headline
The evidence for herbal and botanical remedies, Part 1

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, a division of the National Institutes of Medicine, estimates that about 38% of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 That statistic includes 17.7% who say they use natural products. Despite their popularity, many physicians remain skeptical—and for good reason. Enthusiasts frequently offer dramatic anecdotes to “prove” their supplements' worth, but little scientific support is available for most herbal remedies. There are, however, exceptions. As this review of the medical literature will reveal, there is evidence to support the use of capsaicin to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and support for green tea to serve as a lipid-lowering agent and help treat diabetes. Similarly, researchers have found that peppermint may be of value in the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). (We also review the literature on butterbur for migraine headaches, but serious safety issues exist; TABLE.)

In the second part of this series, which is available here, we explore what the evidence tells us about the use of turmeric, chamomile, rosemary, coffee, and cocoa.

Worth noting as you consider this—or any—review of herbals is that while there is limited scientific evidence to establish the safety and efficacy of most herbal products, they are nonetheless freely sold without US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval because under current regulations, they are considered dietary supplements. That legal designation means companies can manufacture, sell, and market herbs without first demonstrating safety and efficacy, as is required for pharmaceutical drugs. Because herbal medications do not require the same testing through the large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) required for pharmaceuticals, evidence is often based on smaller RCTs and other studies of lower overall quality. Despite these limitations, we believe it’s worth keeping an open mind about the value of evidence-based herbal and botanical treatments.

 

 

Capsaicin 

Overview

Capsaicin, an active compound in chili peppers, provokes a burning sensation, but also has a long history of use in pain treatment.2 Qutenza, an FDA-approved chemically synthesized 8% capsaicin patch, is identical to the naturally occurring molecule.2 Topically applied capsaicin exerts its therapeutic effect by rapidly depleting substance P, thus reducing the transmission of pain from C fibers to higher neurologic centers in the area of administration.3

Capsaicin provided mild to moderate efficacy in randomized trials for patients with hand and knee OA when compared with placebo.

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown capsaicin is effective for various painful conditions, including peripheral diabetic neuropathy, OA, and PHN.

Peripheral neuropathy. A Cochrane review of 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration using topical 8% capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain concluded that high-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat PHN and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neuropathy provided more relief in patients with high pain levels than control patients who received placebo, which was a subtherapeutic (0.04%) capsaicin cream. Number-needed-to-treat values were between 8 and 12. Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported enough to calculate a number needed to harm.4

OA. Capsaicin provides mild to moderate efficacy in randomized trials for patients with hand and knee OA, when compared with placebo.5-7 A systematic review of capsaicin for all osteoarthritic conditions noted that there was consistent evidence that capsaicin gel was effective for OA.8 However, a 2013 Cochrane review of only knee OA noted that capsicum extract did not provide significant clinical improvement for pain or function in knee OA and resulted in a significant number of adverse events.9

Low back pain (LBP). Based on a 2014 Cochrane review of 3 trials (755 subjects) of moderate quality, capsicum frutescens cream or plaster appeared more efficacious than placebo in people with chronic LBP.10 Based on current (low-quality) evidence in one trial, however, it’s not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for acute LBP than a placebo.10

PHN. Topical 8% capsaicin is an FDA-approved treatment for PHN. A review and cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that 8% capsaicin had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) used to treat PHN.11 In addition, the cost-effectiveness analysis found that the capsaicin patch was similar in cost to a topical lidocaine patch and oral products for PHN.11

A meta-analysis of 7 RCTs indicated that 8% topical capsaicin was superior to the low-dose capsaicin patch for relieving pain associated with PHN.12

Adverse effects

Very few toxic effects have been reported during a half century of capsaicin use. Those that have been reported are mainly limited to mild local reactions.2 The most common adverse effect of topical capsaicin is local irritation (burning, stinging, and erythema), which had been reported to occur in approximately 40% of patients.6 Nevertheless, more than 90% of the subjects in clinical studies were able to complete the studies, and pain rapidly resolved after patch removal.2 Washing with soap and water may help prevent the compound from spreading to other parts of the body unintentionally.

The safety of the patch has been demonstrated with repeated dosing every 3 months for up to one year. However, the long-term risks of chronic capsaicin use and its effect on epidermal innervation are uncertain.5

The bottom line

Capsaicin appears to be an effective treatment for neuropathy and chronic LBP. It is FDA approved for the treatment of PHN. It may also benefit patients with OA and acute LBP. Serious adverse effects are uncommon with topical use. Common adverse effects include burning pain and irritation in the area of application, which can be intense and cause discontinuation.2

 

 

Butterbur

Overview

Petasites hybridus, also known as butterbur, is a member of the daisy family, Asteraceae, and is a perennial plant found throughout Europe and Asia.13 It was used as a remedy for ulcers, wounds, and inflammation in ancient Greece. Its calcium channel-blocking effects may counteract vasoconstriction and play a role in preventing hyper-excitation of neurons.14 Sesquiterpenes, the pharmacologically active compounds in butterbur, have strong anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory effects through lipoxygenase and leukotriene inhibition.14

Migraine headache. Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis. Several studies have shown butterbur to significantly reduce the number of migraine attacks per month when compared with placebo. In a small, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study on the efficacy and tolerability of a special butterbur root extract (Petadolex) for the prevention of migraine, response rate was 45% in the butterbur group vs 15% in the placebo group. Butterbur was well tolerated.15 Similar results were found in another RCT in which Petasites (butterbur) 75 mg bid significantly reduced migraine attack frequency by 48%, compared with 26% for the placebo group.16 Petadolex was well tolerated in this study, too, and no serious adverse events occurred. Findings suggest that 75 mg bid may be a good option for migraine prevention given the agent's safety profile.

Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis, but there are serious concerns about liver toxicity.

Petadolex may also be a good option in pediatric migraine. A 2005 study in children and adolescents found that 77% of patients experienced a reduction in attacks by at least 50% with butterbur. Patients were treated with 50 mg to 150 mg over 4 months.17

In their guidelines for migraine prevention, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society gave butterbur a Level A recommendation and concluded that butterbur should be offered to patients with migraine to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks.18 However, the AAN has since changed its position, stating that “The 2012 AAN guideline, ‘Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDS and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults’ has been retired by the AAN Board of Directors on September 16, 2015, due to serious safety concerns with a preventative treatment, butterbur, recommended by this guideline. The recommendations and conclusions in all retired guidelines are considered no longer valid and no longer supported by the AAN.”19

Allergic rhinitis. Although the data is not convincing, some studies have shown that butterbur may be beneficial for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.20,21

Adverse effects

While the butterbur plant itself contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PA), which are hepatotoxic and carcinogenic, extracts of butterbur root that are almost completely free from these alkaloids are available. (Patients who choose to use butterbur should be advised to use only products that are certified and labeled pyrrolizidine alkaloids free.)

Petadolex, the medication used in migraine studies, was initially approved by the German health regulatory authority, but approval was later withdrawn due to concerns about liver toxicity.22 In 2012, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency withdrew all butterbur products from the market due to associated cases of liver toxicity.22 Petasites (butterbur) products are still available in the US market, and the risks and benefits should be discussed with all patients considering this treatment. Liver function monitoring is recommended for all patients using butterbur.22

The herb can also cause dyspepsia, headache, itchy eyes, gastrointestinal symptoms, asthma, fatigue, and drowsiness. Additionally, people who are allergic to ragweed and daisies may have allergic reactions to butterbur. Eructation (belching) occurred in 7% of patients in a pediatric study.17

The bottom line

Butterbur appears to be efficacious for migraine prophylaxis, but long-term safety is unknown and serious concerns exist for liver toxicity.

 

 

Green tea

Overview

Most tea leaves come from the Camellia sinensis bush, but green and black tea are processed differently to produce different end products.23 It is estimated that green tea accounts for approximately a quarter of all tea consumption, and is most commonly consumed in Asian countries.23 The health-promoting effects of green tea are mainly attributed to its polyphenol content.24 While there are many types of tea due to how they are processed, green tea has the highest concentration of polyphenols, including catechins, which are powerful antioxidants.23,24 Green tea has been used in traditional Chinese and Indian medicine to control bleeding, improve digestion, and promote overall health.23

Dementia. Green tea polyphenols may enhance cognition and may protect against the development of dementia. In-vitro studies have shown that green tea reduces hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid peptides, which are significant in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.25 A 12-subject double-blind study found green tea increased working memory and had an impact on frontoparietal brain connections.26 Furthermore, a cohort study with 13,645 Japanese participants over a 5-year period found that frequent green tea consumption (>5 cups per day) was associated with a lower risk of dementa.27 Additional studies are needed, but green tea may be useful in the treatment or prevention of dementia in the future.

Coronary artery disease. In one study, green tea plasma and urinary concentrations were associated with plasma biomarkers of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.28 In one review, the consumption of green tea was associated with a statistically significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.29 Furthermore, a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies concluded that increased tea consumption (of any type) is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, cardiac death, stroke, and total mortality.30

Cancer. Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk of cancer development, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent. Studies have shown that cancer rates tend to be lower in those who consume higher levels of green tea.31,32 Whether this can be attributed solely to green tea remains debatable. Several other studies have shown that polyphenols in green tea can inhibit the growth of cancer cells, but the exact mechanisms by which tea interacts with cancerous cells is unknown.23

Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk of cancer development, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent.

Several population-based studies have been performed, mostly in Japan, which showed green tea consumption reduced the risk of developing cancer. Fewer prostate cancer cases have been reported in men who consume green tea.33 While studies have been performed to determine whether green tea has effects on pancreatic, esophageal, ovarian, breast, bladder, and colorectal cancer, the evidence remains inadequate.32

Diabetes. Green tea has been shown in several studies to have a beneficial effect on diabetes. A retrospective Japanese cohort study showed that those who consumed green tea were one-third less likely to develop type 2 diabetes mellitus.34 A 10-year study from Taiwan found lower body fat and smaller waist circumference in those who consumed green tea regularly.35 A 2014 meta-analysis and systematic review of tea (any type) consumption and the risk of diabetes concluded that 3 cups or more of tea per day was associated with a lower risk of diabetes.36 Another meta-analysis that included 17 RCTs and that focused on green tea concluded that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.37

Adverse effects

There have been concerns about potential hepatotoxicity induced by green tea intake.38 However, a systematic review of 34 RCTs on liver-related adverse events from green tea showed only a slight elevation in liver function tests; no serious liver-related adverse events were reported.38 This review suggested that liver-related adverse events after intake of green tea extracts are rare.38

A meta-analysis that included 17 RCTs found that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.

Consuming green tea in the diet may lower the risk of adverse effects since the concentration consumed is generally much lower than that found in extracts.

Contraindications to drinking green tea are few. Individuals with caffeine sensitivities could experience insomnia, anxiety, irritability, or upset stomach. Additionally, patients who are taking anticoagulation drugs, such as warfarin, should avoid green tea due to its vitamin K content, which can counter the effects of warfarin. Pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with heart problems or high blood pressure, kidney or liver problems, stomach ulcers, or anxiety disorders should use caution with green tea consumption.

The bottom line

Green tea consumption in the diet appears to be safe and may have beneficial effects on weight, diabetes mellitus risk, cancer risk, dementia, and cardiovascular risk. Patients may want to consider drinking green tea as part of a healthy diet, in combination with exercise.

 

 

Mint/peppermint/menthol

Overview

Mentha piperita, also known as peppermint, is a hybrid between water mint and spearmint. It is found throughout Europe and North America and is commonly used in tea and toothpaste and as a flavoring for gum. It is used both orally and topically. Menthol and methyl salicylate are the main active ingredients in peppermint, and peppermint has calcium channel-blocker effects.39 Menthol has been shown to help regulate cold and pain sensation through the TRPM8 receptor.40 The peppermint herb has been studied in the treatment of multiple conditions.

IBS. It appears that peppermint inhibits spontaneous peristaltic activity, which reduces gastric emptying, decreases basal tone in the gastrointestinal tract, and slows down peristalsis in the gut.39

The American College of Gastroenterology guidelines currently note that there is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.41 A Cochrane review concluded that peppermint appears to be beneficial for IBS-related symptoms and pain.42 In a systematic review of 9 studies from 2014, peppermint oil was found to be more effective than placebo for IBS symptoms such as pain, bloating, gas, and diarrhea.43 The review also indicated that peppermint oil is safe, with heartburn being the most common complaint.43 A 2016 study also found that triple-coated microspheres containing peppermint oil reduced the frequency and intensity of IBS symptoms.44

Non-ulcer dyspepsia. In combination with caraway oil, peppermint oil can be used to reduce symptoms of non-ulcer dyspepsia.45,46 A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study found that 43.3% of subjects improved with a peppermint-caraway oil combination after 8 weeks, compared with 3.5% receiving placebo.46

Barium enema-related colonic spasm. Peppermint can relax the lower esophageal sphincter, and it has been shown to be useful as an antispasmodic agent for barium enema-related colonic spasm.47,48

Itching/skin irritation. Peppermint, when applied topically, has been used to calm pruritus and relieve irritation and inflammation. It has a soothing and cooling effect on the skin. At least one study found it to be effective in the treatment of pruritus gravidarum, although the study population consisted of only 96 subjects.49

Migraine headache. Initial small trials suggest that menthol is likely beneficial for migraine headaches. A pilot trial of 25 patients treated with topical menthol 6% gel for an acute migraine attack showed a significant improvement in headache intensity by 2 hours after gel application.50 In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 35 patients, a menthol 10% solution was shown to be more efficacious as abortive treatment of migraine headaches than placebo.51

Tension headache. A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind crossover study of topical peppermint oil showed a significant clinical reduction in tension headache pain.52 Another small randomized, double-blind trial showed that tiger balm (containing menthol as the main ingredient) also produced statistically significant improvement in tension headache discomfort compared with placebo.53

Musculoskeletal pain. A small study comparing topical menthol to ice for muscle soreness noted decreased perceived discomfort with menthol.54 Menthol has also been shown to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.55

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial concluded that topical menthol acutely reduced pain intensity during the working day in slaughterhouse workers with CTS and should be considered as an effective non-systemic alternative to regular analgesics in the workplace management of chronic and neuropathic pain.56

Adverse effects

Peppermint appears to be safe for most adults when used in small doses, and serious adverse effects are rare.43,57 While peppermint tea appears to be safe in moderate to large amounts, people allergic to plants in the peppermint family (eg, mint, thyme, sage, rosemary, marjoram, basil, lavender) may experience allergic reactions with swelling, wheals, or erythema. Peppermint may also cause heartburn due to relaxation of the cardiac sphincter.

There is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.

Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, flushing, and headache.58 The herb may also be both hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic at extremely high doses.59 Other considerations for women are that it can trigger menstruation and should be avoided during pregnancy. Due to uncertain efficacy in this population, peppermint oil should not be used on the face of infants, young children, or pregnant women.58,59

The bottom line

Peppermint appears to be safe and well-tolerated. It is useful in alleviating IBS symptoms and may be effective in the treatment of non-ulcerative dyspepsia, musculoskeletal pain, headache, and carpal tunnel syndrome.54,55

Read part 2 here.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed November 28, 2017.

2. Wallace M, Pappagallo M. Qutenza: a capsaicin 8% patch for the management of postherpetic neuralgia. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11:15-27.

3. Rains C, Bryson HM. Topical capsaicin. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic potential in post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy and osteoarthritis. Drugs Aging. 1995;7:317-328.

4. Derry S, Sven-Rice A, Cole P, et al. Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD007393.

5. Mason L, Moore RA, Derry S, et al. Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain. BMJ. 2004;328:991.

6. Deal CL, Schnitzer TJ, Lipstein E, et al. Treatment of arthritis with topical capsaicin: a double-blind trial. Clin Ther. 1991;13:383.

7. McCarthy GM, McCarty DJ. Effect of topical capsaicin in the therapy of painful osteoarthritis of the hands. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:604.

8. De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E, et al; Arthritis Research UK Working Group on Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50:911-920.

9. Cameron M, Chrubasik S. Topical herbal therapies for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5):CD010538.

10. Oltean H, Robbins C, van Tulder MW, et al. Herbal medicine for low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD004504.

11. Armstrong EP, Malone DC, McCarberg B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:939-950.

12. Mou J, Paillard F, Turnbull B, et al. Efficacy of Qutenza (capsaicin) 8% patch for neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis of the Qutenza Clinical Trials Database. Pain. 2013;154:1632-1639.

13. Sun-Edelstein C, Mauskop A. Alternative headache treatments: nutraceuticals, behavioral and physical treatments. Headache. 2011;51:469-483.

14. D’Andrea G, Cevoli S, Cologno D. Herbal therapy in migraine. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(Suppl 1):135-140.

15. Diener HC, Rahlfs VW, Danesch U. The first placebo-controlled trial of a special butterbur root extract for the prevention of migraine: reanalysis of efficacy criteria. Eur Neurol. 2004;51:89-97.

16. Lipton RB, Göbel H, Einhäupl KM, et al. Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology. 2004;63:2240-2244.

17. Pothmann R, Danesch U. Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract. Headache. 2005;45:196-203.

18. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353.

19. American Academy of Neurology. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: [RETIRED]. Sept 16, 2015. Available at: http://n.neurology.org/content/78/17/1346. Accessed December 14, 2017.

20. Man LX. Complementary and alternative medicine for allergic rhinitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17:226-231.

21. Guo R, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;99:483-495.

22. Daniel O, Mauskop A. Nutraceuticals in acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016;18:14.

23. Chacko SM, Thambi PT, Kuttan R, et al. Beneficial effects of green tea: a literature review. Chin Med. 2010;6:13.

24. Naghma K, Hasan M. Tea polyphenols for health promotion. Life Sciences. 2007;81:519-533.

25. Okello EJ, McDougall GJ, Kumar S, et al. In vitro protective effects of colon-available extract of Camellia sinensis (tea) against hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid (Aβ((1-42))) induced cytotoxicity in differentiated PC12 cells. Phytomedicine. 2011;15;18:691-696.

26. Schmidt A, Hammann F, Wölnerhanssen B, et al. Green tea extract enhances parieto-frontal connectivity during working memory processing. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014;231:3879-3888.

27. Tomata Y, Sugiyama K, Kaiho Y, et al. Green tea consumption and the risk of incident dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;24:881-889.

28. Takechi R, Alfonso H, Hiramatsu N, et al. Elevated plasma and urinary concentrations of green tea catechins associated with improved plasma lipid profile in healthy Japanese women. Nutr Res. 2016;36:220-226.

29. Kim A, Chiu A, Barone MK, et al. Green tea catechins decrease total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111:1720-1729.

30. Zhang C, Qin YY, Wei X, et al. Tea consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes and total mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:103-113.

31. Imai K, Suga K, Nakachi K. Cancer-preventive effects of drinking green tea among a Japanese population. Prev Med. 1997;26:769-775.

32. Yuan JM. Cancer prevention by green tea: evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(6 Suppl):1676S-1681S.

33. Kurahashi N, Sasazuki S, Iwasaki M, et al. Green tea consumption and prostate cancer risk in Japanese men: a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:71-77.

34. Iso H, Date C, Wakai K, et al. The relationship between green tea and total caffeine intake and risk for self-reported type 2 diabetes among Japanese adults. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:554-562.

35. Kim HM, Kim J. The effects of green tea on obesity and type 2 diabetes. Diab Metabol J. 2013;37:173-175.

36. Yang J, Mao Q, Xu H, et al. Tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005632.

37. Liu K, Zhou R, Wang B, et al. Effect of green tea on glucose control and insulin sensitivity: a meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:340-348.

38. Isomura T, Suzuki S, Origasa H, et al. Liver-related safety assessment of green tea extracts in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:1340.

39. Tillisch K. Complementary and alternative medicine for gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Med (Lond). 2007;7:224-227.

40. Knowlton WM, McKemy DD. TRPM8: from cold to cancer, peppermint to pain. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011;12:68-77.

41. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Lacy BE, et al. Task Force on the Management of Functional Bowel Disorders. American College of Gastroenterology monograph on the management of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(Suppl 1):S2-S26;quiz S27.

42. Ruepert L, Quartero AO, de Wit NJ, et al. Bulking agents, antispasmodics and antidepressants for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD003460.

43. Khanna R, MacDonald JK, Levesque BG. Peppermint oil for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:505-512.

44. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. A novel delivery system of peppermint oil is an effective therapy for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Digest Dis Sci. 2016;61:560-571.

45. Holtmann G, Haag S, Adam B, et al. Effects of a fixed combination of peppermint oil and caraway oil on symptoms and quality of life in patients suffering from functional dyspepsia. Phytomedicine. 2003;10(suppl 4):56-57.

46. Madisch A, Heydenreich CJ, Wieland V, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with a fixed peppermint oil and caraway oil combination preparation as compared to cisapride. A multicenter, reference-controlled double-blind equivalence study. Arzneimittelforschung. 1999;49:925-932.

47. Asao T, Kuwano H, Ide M, et al. Spasmolytic effect of peppermint oil in barium during double-contrast barium enema compared with Buscopan. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:301-305.

48. Sparks MJ, O’Sullivan P, Herrington AA, et al. Does peppermint oil relieve spasm during barium enema? Br J Radiol. 1995;68:841-843.

49. Akhavan Amjadi M, Mojab F, Kamranpour SB. The effect of peppermint oil on symptomatic treatment of pruritus in pregnant women. Iranian J Pharm Res. 2012;11:1073-1077.

50. St Cyr A, Chen A, Bradley KC, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of STOPAIN for a migraine attack. Front Neurol. 2015;6:11.

51. Borhani Haghighi A, Motazedian S, Rezaii R, et al. Cutaneous application of menthol 10% solution as an abortive treatment of migraine without aura: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossed-over study. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64:451-456.

52. Gobel H, Fresenius J, Heinze A, et al. Effectiveness of oleum menthae piperitae and paracetamol in therapy of headache of the tension type [German]. Nervenarzt. 1996;67:672-681.

53. Schattner P, Randerson D. Tiger Balm as a treatment of tension headache. A clinical trial in general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 1996;25:216-220.

54. Johar P, Grover V, Topp R, et al. A comparison of topical menthol to ice on pain, evoked tetanic and voluntary force during delayed onset muscle soreness. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7:314-322.

55. Topp R, Brosky JA Jr, Pieschel D. The effect of either topical menthol or a placebo on functioning and knee pain among patients with knee OA. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36:92-99.

56. Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Brandt M, et al. Acute effect of topical menthol on chronic pain in slaughterhouse workers with carpal tunnel syndrome: triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:310913.

57. Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of mentha piperita (peppermint) oil, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf extract, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf, and mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf water. Int J Toxicol. 2001;20(Suppl 3):61-73.

58. Klingler B, Chadhary S. Peppermint oil. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:1027-1030.

59. Nath SS, Pandey C, Roy D. A near fatal case of high dose peppermint oil ingestion—lessons learnt. Indian J Anaesth. 2012; 56:582-584.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
10-16
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, a division of the National Institutes of Medicine, estimates that about 38% of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 That statistic includes 17.7% who say they use natural products. Despite their popularity, many physicians remain skeptical—and for good reason. Enthusiasts frequently offer dramatic anecdotes to “prove” their supplements' worth, but little scientific support is available for most herbal remedies. There are, however, exceptions. As this review of the medical literature will reveal, there is evidence to support the use of capsaicin to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and support for green tea to serve as a lipid-lowering agent and help treat diabetes. Similarly, researchers have found that peppermint may be of value in the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). (We also review the literature on butterbur for migraine headaches, but serious safety issues exist; TABLE.)

In the second part of this series, which is available here, we explore what the evidence tells us about the use of turmeric, chamomile, rosemary, coffee, and cocoa.

Worth noting as you consider this—or any—review of herbals is that while there is limited scientific evidence to establish the safety and efficacy of most herbal products, they are nonetheless freely sold without US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval because under current regulations, they are considered dietary supplements. That legal designation means companies can manufacture, sell, and market herbs without first demonstrating safety and efficacy, as is required for pharmaceutical drugs. Because herbal medications do not require the same testing through the large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) required for pharmaceuticals, evidence is often based on smaller RCTs and other studies of lower overall quality. Despite these limitations, we believe it’s worth keeping an open mind about the value of evidence-based herbal and botanical treatments.

 

 

Capsaicin 

Overview

Capsaicin, an active compound in chili peppers, provokes a burning sensation, but also has a long history of use in pain treatment.2 Qutenza, an FDA-approved chemically synthesized 8% capsaicin patch, is identical to the naturally occurring molecule.2 Topically applied capsaicin exerts its therapeutic effect by rapidly depleting substance P, thus reducing the transmission of pain from C fibers to higher neurologic centers in the area of administration.3

Capsaicin provided mild to moderate efficacy in randomized trials for patients with hand and knee OA when compared with placebo.

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown capsaicin is effective for various painful conditions, including peripheral diabetic neuropathy, OA, and PHN.

Peripheral neuropathy. A Cochrane review of 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration using topical 8% capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain concluded that high-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat PHN and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neuropathy provided more relief in patients with high pain levels than control patients who received placebo, which was a subtherapeutic (0.04%) capsaicin cream. Number-needed-to-treat values were between 8 and 12. Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported enough to calculate a number needed to harm.4

OA. Capsaicin provides mild to moderate efficacy in randomized trials for patients with hand and knee OA, when compared with placebo.5-7 A systematic review of capsaicin for all osteoarthritic conditions noted that there was consistent evidence that capsaicin gel was effective for OA.8 However, a 2013 Cochrane review of only knee OA noted that capsicum extract did not provide significant clinical improvement for pain or function in knee OA and resulted in a significant number of adverse events.9

Low back pain (LBP). Based on a 2014 Cochrane review of 3 trials (755 subjects) of moderate quality, capsicum frutescens cream or plaster appeared more efficacious than placebo in people with chronic LBP.10 Based on current (low-quality) evidence in one trial, however, it’s not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for acute LBP than a placebo.10

PHN. Topical 8% capsaicin is an FDA-approved treatment for PHN. A review and cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that 8% capsaicin had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) used to treat PHN.11 In addition, the cost-effectiveness analysis found that the capsaicin patch was similar in cost to a topical lidocaine patch and oral products for PHN.11

A meta-analysis of 7 RCTs indicated that 8% topical capsaicin was superior to the low-dose capsaicin patch for relieving pain associated with PHN.12

Adverse effects

Very few toxic effects have been reported during a half century of capsaicin use. Those that have been reported are mainly limited to mild local reactions.2 The most common adverse effect of topical capsaicin is local irritation (burning, stinging, and erythema), which had been reported to occur in approximately 40% of patients.6 Nevertheless, more than 90% of the subjects in clinical studies were able to complete the studies, and pain rapidly resolved after patch removal.2 Washing with soap and water may help prevent the compound from spreading to other parts of the body unintentionally.

The safety of the patch has been demonstrated with repeated dosing every 3 months for up to one year. However, the long-term risks of chronic capsaicin use and its effect on epidermal innervation are uncertain.5

The bottom line

Capsaicin appears to be an effective treatment for neuropathy and chronic LBP. It is FDA approved for the treatment of PHN. It may also benefit patients with OA and acute LBP. Serious adverse effects are uncommon with topical use. Common adverse effects include burning pain and irritation in the area of application, which can be intense and cause discontinuation.2

 

 

Butterbur

Overview

Petasites hybridus, also known as butterbur, is a member of the daisy family, Asteraceae, and is a perennial plant found throughout Europe and Asia.13 It was used as a remedy for ulcers, wounds, and inflammation in ancient Greece. Its calcium channel-blocking effects may counteract vasoconstriction and play a role in preventing hyper-excitation of neurons.14 Sesquiterpenes, the pharmacologically active compounds in butterbur, have strong anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory effects through lipoxygenase and leukotriene inhibition.14

Migraine headache. Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis. Several studies have shown butterbur to significantly reduce the number of migraine attacks per month when compared with placebo. In a small, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study on the efficacy and tolerability of a special butterbur root extract (Petadolex) for the prevention of migraine, response rate was 45% in the butterbur group vs 15% in the placebo group. Butterbur was well tolerated.15 Similar results were found in another RCT in which Petasites (butterbur) 75 mg bid significantly reduced migraine attack frequency by 48%, compared with 26% for the placebo group.16 Petadolex was well tolerated in this study, too, and no serious adverse events occurred. Findings suggest that 75 mg bid may be a good option for migraine prevention given the agent's safety profile.

Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis, but there are serious concerns about liver toxicity.

Petadolex may also be a good option in pediatric migraine. A 2005 study in children and adolescents found that 77% of patients experienced a reduction in attacks by at least 50% with butterbur. Patients were treated with 50 mg to 150 mg over 4 months.17

In their guidelines for migraine prevention, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society gave butterbur a Level A recommendation and concluded that butterbur should be offered to patients with migraine to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks.18 However, the AAN has since changed its position, stating that “The 2012 AAN guideline, ‘Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDS and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults’ has been retired by the AAN Board of Directors on September 16, 2015, due to serious safety concerns with a preventative treatment, butterbur, recommended by this guideline. The recommendations and conclusions in all retired guidelines are considered no longer valid and no longer supported by the AAN.”19

Allergic rhinitis. Although the data is not convincing, some studies have shown that butterbur may be beneficial for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.20,21

Adverse effects

While the butterbur plant itself contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PA), which are hepatotoxic and carcinogenic, extracts of butterbur root that are almost completely free from these alkaloids are available. (Patients who choose to use butterbur should be advised to use only products that are certified and labeled pyrrolizidine alkaloids free.)

Petadolex, the medication used in migraine studies, was initially approved by the German health regulatory authority, but approval was later withdrawn due to concerns about liver toxicity.22 In 2012, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency withdrew all butterbur products from the market due to associated cases of liver toxicity.22 Petasites (butterbur) products are still available in the US market, and the risks and benefits should be discussed with all patients considering this treatment. Liver function monitoring is recommended for all patients using butterbur.22

The herb can also cause dyspepsia, headache, itchy eyes, gastrointestinal symptoms, asthma, fatigue, and drowsiness. Additionally, people who are allergic to ragweed and daisies may have allergic reactions to butterbur. Eructation (belching) occurred in 7% of patients in a pediatric study.17

The bottom line

Butterbur appears to be efficacious for migraine prophylaxis, but long-term safety is unknown and serious concerns exist for liver toxicity.

 

 

Green tea

Overview

Most tea leaves come from the Camellia sinensis bush, but green and black tea are processed differently to produce different end products.23 It is estimated that green tea accounts for approximately a quarter of all tea consumption, and is most commonly consumed in Asian countries.23 The health-promoting effects of green tea are mainly attributed to its polyphenol content.24 While there are many types of tea due to how they are processed, green tea has the highest concentration of polyphenols, including catechins, which are powerful antioxidants.23,24 Green tea has been used in traditional Chinese and Indian medicine to control bleeding, improve digestion, and promote overall health.23

Dementia. Green tea polyphenols may enhance cognition and may protect against the development of dementia. In-vitro studies have shown that green tea reduces hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid peptides, which are significant in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.25 A 12-subject double-blind study found green tea increased working memory and had an impact on frontoparietal brain connections.26 Furthermore, a cohort study with 13,645 Japanese participants over a 5-year period found that frequent green tea consumption (>5 cups per day) was associated with a lower risk of dementa.27 Additional studies are needed, but green tea may be useful in the treatment or prevention of dementia in the future.

Coronary artery disease. In one study, green tea plasma and urinary concentrations were associated with plasma biomarkers of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.28 In one review, the consumption of green tea was associated with a statistically significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.29 Furthermore, a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies concluded that increased tea consumption (of any type) is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, cardiac death, stroke, and total mortality.30

Cancer. Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk of cancer development, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent. Studies have shown that cancer rates tend to be lower in those who consume higher levels of green tea.31,32 Whether this can be attributed solely to green tea remains debatable. Several other studies have shown that polyphenols in green tea can inhibit the growth of cancer cells, but the exact mechanisms by which tea interacts with cancerous cells is unknown.23

Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk of cancer development, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent.

Several population-based studies have been performed, mostly in Japan, which showed green tea consumption reduced the risk of developing cancer. Fewer prostate cancer cases have been reported in men who consume green tea.33 While studies have been performed to determine whether green tea has effects on pancreatic, esophageal, ovarian, breast, bladder, and colorectal cancer, the evidence remains inadequate.32

Diabetes. Green tea has been shown in several studies to have a beneficial effect on diabetes. A retrospective Japanese cohort study showed that those who consumed green tea were one-third less likely to develop type 2 diabetes mellitus.34 A 10-year study from Taiwan found lower body fat and smaller waist circumference in those who consumed green tea regularly.35 A 2014 meta-analysis and systematic review of tea (any type) consumption and the risk of diabetes concluded that 3 cups or more of tea per day was associated with a lower risk of diabetes.36 Another meta-analysis that included 17 RCTs and that focused on green tea concluded that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.37

Adverse effects

There have been concerns about potential hepatotoxicity induced by green tea intake.38 However, a systematic review of 34 RCTs on liver-related adverse events from green tea showed only a slight elevation in liver function tests; no serious liver-related adverse events were reported.38 This review suggested that liver-related adverse events after intake of green tea extracts are rare.38

A meta-analysis that included 17 RCTs found that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.

Consuming green tea in the diet may lower the risk of adverse effects since the concentration consumed is generally much lower than that found in extracts.

Contraindications to drinking green tea are few. Individuals with caffeine sensitivities could experience insomnia, anxiety, irritability, or upset stomach. Additionally, patients who are taking anticoagulation drugs, such as warfarin, should avoid green tea due to its vitamin K content, which can counter the effects of warfarin. Pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with heart problems or high blood pressure, kidney or liver problems, stomach ulcers, or anxiety disorders should use caution with green tea consumption.

The bottom line

Green tea consumption in the diet appears to be safe and may have beneficial effects on weight, diabetes mellitus risk, cancer risk, dementia, and cardiovascular risk. Patients may want to consider drinking green tea as part of a healthy diet, in combination with exercise.

 

 

Mint/peppermint/menthol

Overview

Mentha piperita, also known as peppermint, is a hybrid between water mint and spearmint. It is found throughout Europe and North America and is commonly used in tea and toothpaste and as a flavoring for gum. It is used both orally and topically. Menthol and methyl salicylate are the main active ingredients in peppermint, and peppermint has calcium channel-blocker effects.39 Menthol has been shown to help regulate cold and pain sensation through the TRPM8 receptor.40 The peppermint herb has been studied in the treatment of multiple conditions.

IBS. It appears that peppermint inhibits spontaneous peristaltic activity, which reduces gastric emptying, decreases basal tone in the gastrointestinal tract, and slows down peristalsis in the gut.39

The American College of Gastroenterology guidelines currently note that there is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.41 A Cochrane review concluded that peppermint appears to be beneficial for IBS-related symptoms and pain.42 In a systematic review of 9 studies from 2014, peppermint oil was found to be more effective than placebo for IBS symptoms such as pain, bloating, gas, and diarrhea.43 The review also indicated that peppermint oil is safe, with heartburn being the most common complaint.43 A 2016 study also found that triple-coated microspheres containing peppermint oil reduced the frequency and intensity of IBS symptoms.44

Non-ulcer dyspepsia. In combination with caraway oil, peppermint oil can be used to reduce symptoms of non-ulcer dyspepsia.45,46 A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study found that 43.3% of subjects improved with a peppermint-caraway oil combination after 8 weeks, compared with 3.5% receiving placebo.46

Barium enema-related colonic spasm. Peppermint can relax the lower esophageal sphincter, and it has been shown to be useful as an antispasmodic agent for barium enema-related colonic spasm.47,48

Itching/skin irritation. Peppermint, when applied topically, has been used to calm pruritus and relieve irritation and inflammation. It has a soothing and cooling effect on the skin. At least one study found it to be effective in the treatment of pruritus gravidarum, although the study population consisted of only 96 subjects.49

Migraine headache. Initial small trials suggest that menthol is likely beneficial for migraine headaches. A pilot trial of 25 patients treated with topical menthol 6% gel for an acute migraine attack showed a significant improvement in headache intensity by 2 hours after gel application.50 In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 35 patients, a menthol 10% solution was shown to be more efficacious as abortive treatment of migraine headaches than placebo.51

Tension headache. A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind crossover study of topical peppermint oil showed a significant clinical reduction in tension headache pain.52 Another small randomized, double-blind trial showed that tiger balm (containing menthol as the main ingredient) also produced statistically significant improvement in tension headache discomfort compared with placebo.53

Musculoskeletal pain. A small study comparing topical menthol to ice for muscle soreness noted decreased perceived discomfort with menthol.54 Menthol has also been shown to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.55

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial concluded that topical menthol acutely reduced pain intensity during the working day in slaughterhouse workers with CTS and should be considered as an effective non-systemic alternative to regular analgesics in the workplace management of chronic and neuropathic pain.56

Adverse effects

Peppermint appears to be safe for most adults when used in small doses, and serious adverse effects are rare.43,57 While peppermint tea appears to be safe in moderate to large amounts, people allergic to plants in the peppermint family (eg, mint, thyme, sage, rosemary, marjoram, basil, lavender) may experience allergic reactions with swelling, wheals, or erythema. Peppermint may also cause heartburn due to relaxation of the cardiac sphincter.

There is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.

Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, flushing, and headache.58 The herb may also be both hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic at extremely high doses.59 Other considerations for women are that it can trigger menstruation and should be avoided during pregnancy. Due to uncertain efficacy in this population, peppermint oil should not be used on the face of infants, young children, or pregnant women.58,59

The bottom line

Peppermint appears to be safe and well-tolerated. It is useful in alleviating IBS symptoms and may be effective in the treatment of non-ulcerative dyspepsia, musculoskeletal pain, headache, and carpal tunnel syndrome.54,55

Read part 2 here.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, a division of the National Institutes of Medicine, estimates that about 38% of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 That statistic includes 17.7% who say they use natural products. Despite their popularity, many physicians remain skeptical—and for good reason. Enthusiasts frequently offer dramatic anecdotes to “prove” their supplements' worth, but little scientific support is available for most herbal remedies. There are, however, exceptions. As this review of the medical literature will reveal, there is evidence to support the use of capsaicin to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and support for green tea to serve as a lipid-lowering agent and help treat diabetes. Similarly, researchers have found that peppermint may be of value in the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). (We also review the literature on butterbur for migraine headaches, but serious safety issues exist; TABLE.)

In the second part of this series, which is available here, we explore what the evidence tells us about the use of turmeric, chamomile, rosemary, coffee, and cocoa.

Worth noting as you consider this—or any—review of herbals is that while there is limited scientific evidence to establish the safety and efficacy of most herbal products, they are nonetheless freely sold without US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval because under current regulations, they are considered dietary supplements. That legal designation means companies can manufacture, sell, and market herbs without first demonstrating safety and efficacy, as is required for pharmaceutical drugs. Because herbal medications do not require the same testing through the large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) required for pharmaceuticals, evidence is often based on smaller RCTs and other studies of lower overall quality. Despite these limitations, we believe it’s worth keeping an open mind about the value of evidence-based herbal and botanical treatments.

 

 

Capsaicin 

Overview

Capsaicin, an active compound in chili peppers, provokes a burning sensation, but also has a long history of use in pain treatment.2 Qutenza, an FDA-approved chemically synthesized 8% capsaicin patch, is identical to the naturally occurring molecule.2 Topically applied capsaicin exerts its therapeutic effect by rapidly depleting substance P, thus reducing the transmission of pain from C fibers to higher neurologic centers in the area of administration.3

Capsaicin provided mild to moderate efficacy in randomized trials for patients with hand and knee OA when compared with placebo.

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown capsaicin is effective for various painful conditions, including peripheral diabetic neuropathy, OA, and PHN.

Peripheral neuropathy. A Cochrane review of 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration using topical 8% capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain concluded that high-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat PHN and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neuropathy provided more relief in patients with high pain levels than control patients who received placebo, which was a subtherapeutic (0.04%) capsaicin cream. Number-needed-to-treat values were between 8 and 12. Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported enough to calculate a number needed to harm.4

OA. Capsaicin provides mild to moderate efficacy in randomized trials for patients with hand and knee OA, when compared with placebo.5-7 A systematic review of capsaicin for all osteoarthritic conditions noted that there was consistent evidence that capsaicin gel was effective for OA.8 However, a 2013 Cochrane review of only knee OA noted that capsicum extract did not provide significant clinical improvement for pain or function in knee OA and resulted in a significant number of adverse events.9

Low back pain (LBP). Based on a 2014 Cochrane review of 3 trials (755 subjects) of moderate quality, capsicum frutescens cream or plaster appeared more efficacious than placebo in people with chronic LBP.10 Based on current (low-quality) evidence in one trial, however, it’s not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for acute LBP than a placebo.10

PHN. Topical 8% capsaicin is an FDA-approved treatment for PHN. A review and cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that 8% capsaicin had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) used to treat PHN.11 In addition, the cost-effectiveness analysis found that the capsaicin patch was similar in cost to a topical lidocaine patch and oral products for PHN.11

A meta-analysis of 7 RCTs indicated that 8% topical capsaicin was superior to the low-dose capsaicin patch for relieving pain associated with PHN.12

Adverse effects

Very few toxic effects have been reported during a half century of capsaicin use. Those that have been reported are mainly limited to mild local reactions.2 The most common adverse effect of topical capsaicin is local irritation (burning, stinging, and erythema), which had been reported to occur in approximately 40% of patients.6 Nevertheless, more than 90% of the subjects in clinical studies were able to complete the studies, and pain rapidly resolved after patch removal.2 Washing with soap and water may help prevent the compound from spreading to other parts of the body unintentionally.

The safety of the patch has been demonstrated with repeated dosing every 3 months for up to one year. However, the long-term risks of chronic capsaicin use and its effect on epidermal innervation are uncertain.5

The bottom line

Capsaicin appears to be an effective treatment for neuropathy and chronic LBP. It is FDA approved for the treatment of PHN. It may also benefit patients with OA and acute LBP. Serious adverse effects are uncommon with topical use. Common adverse effects include burning pain and irritation in the area of application, which can be intense and cause discontinuation.2

 

 

Butterbur

Overview

Petasites hybridus, also known as butterbur, is a member of the daisy family, Asteraceae, and is a perennial plant found throughout Europe and Asia.13 It was used as a remedy for ulcers, wounds, and inflammation in ancient Greece. Its calcium channel-blocking effects may counteract vasoconstriction and play a role in preventing hyper-excitation of neurons.14 Sesquiterpenes, the pharmacologically active compounds in butterbur, have strong anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory effects through lipoxygenase and leukotriene inhibition.14

Migraine headache. Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis. Several studies have shown butterbur to significantly reduce the number of migraine attacks per month when compared with placebo. In a small, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study on the efficacy and tolerability of a special butterbur root extract (Petadolex) for the prevention of migraine, response rate was 45% in the butterbur group vs 15% in the placebo group. Butterbur was well tolerated.15 Similar results were found in another RCT in which Petasites (butterbur) 75 mg bid significantly reduced migraine attack frequency by 48%, compared with 26% for the placebo group.16 Petadolex was well tolerated in this study, too, and no serious adverse events occurred. Findings suggest that 75 mg bid may be a good option for migraine prevention given the agent's safety profile.

Butterbur appears to be effective in migraine prophylaxis, but there are serious concerns about liver toxicity.

Petadolex may also be a good option in pediatric migraine. A 2005 study in children and adolescents found that 77% of patients experienced a reduction in attacks by at least 50% with butterbur. Patients were treated with 50 mg to 150 mg over 4 months.17

In their guidelines for migraine prevention, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society gave butterbur a Level A recommendation and concluded that butterbur should be offered to patients with migraine to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks.18 However, the AAN has since changed its position, stating that “The 2012 AAN guideline, ‘Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDS and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults’ has been retired by the AAN Board of Directors on September 16, 2015, due to serious safety concerns with a preventative treatment, butterbur, recommended by this guideline. The recommendations and conclusions in all retired guidelines are considered no longer valid and no longer supported by the AAN.”19

Allergic rhinitis. Although the data is not convincing, some studies have shown that butterbur may be beneficial for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.20,21

Adverse effects

While the butterbur plant itself contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PA), which are hepatotoxic and carcinogenic, extracts of butterbur root that are almost completely free from these alkaloids are available. (Patients who choose to use butterbur should be advised to use only products that are certified and labeled pyrrolizidine alkaloids free.)

Petadolex, the medication used in migraine studies, was initially approved by the German health regulatory authority, but approval was later withdrawn due to concerns about liver toxicity.22 In 2012, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency withdrew all butterbur products from the market due to associated cases of liver toxicity.22 Petasites (butterbur) products are still available in the US market, and the risks and benefits should be discussed with all patients considering this treatment. Liver function monitoring is recommended for all patients using butterbur.22

The herb can also cause dyspepsia, headache, itchy eyes, gastrointestinal symptoms, asthma, fatigue, and drowsiness. Additionally, people who are allergic to ragweed and daisies may have allergic reactions to butterbur. Eructation (belching) occurred in 7% of patients in a pediatric study.17

The bottom line

Butterbur appears to be efficacious for migraine prophylaxis, but long-term safety is unknown and serious concerns exist for liver toxicity.

 

 

Green tea

Overview

Most tea leaves come from the Camellia sinensis bush, but green and black tea are processed differently to produce different end products.23 It is estimated that green tea accounts for approximately a quarter of all tea consumption, and is most commonly consumed in Asian countries.23 The health-promoting effects of green tea are mainly attributed to its polyphenol content.24 While there are many types of tea due to how they are processed, green tea has the highest concentration of polyphenols, including catechins, which are powerful antioxidants.23,24 Green tea has been used in traditional Chinese and Indian medicine to control bleeding, improve digestion, and promote overall health.23

Dementia. Green tea polyphenols may enhance cognition and may protect against the development of dementia. In-vitro studies have shown that green tea reduces hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid peptides, which are significant in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.25 A 12-subject double-blind study found green tea increased working memory and had an impact on frontoparietal brain connections.26 Furthermore, a cohort study with 13,645 Japanese participants over a 5-year period found that frequent green tea consumption (>5 cups per day) was associated with a lower risk of dementa.27 Additional studies are needed, but green tea may be useful in the treatment or prevention of dementia in the future.

Coronary artery disease. In one study, green tea plasma and urinary concentrations were associated with plasma biomarkers of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.28 In one review, the consumption of green tea was associated with a statistically significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.29 Furthermore, a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies concluded that increased tea consumption (of any type) is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, cardiac death, stroke, and total mortality.30

Cancer. Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk of cancer development, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent. Studies have shown that cancer rates tend to be lower in those who consume higher levels of green tea.31,32 Whether this can be attributed solely to green tea remains debatable. Several other studies have shown that polyphenols in green tea can inhibit the growth of cancer cells, but the exact mechanisms by which tea interacts with cancerous cells is unknown.23

Many studies have shown that green tea may reduce the risk of cancer development, although epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent.

Several population-based studies have been performed, mostly in Japan, which showed green tea consumption reduced the risk of developing cancer. Fewer prostate cancer cases have been reported in men who consume green tea.33 While studies have been performed to determine whether green tea has effects on pancreatic, esophageal, ovarian, breast, bladder, and colorectal cancer, the evidence remains inadequate.32

Diabetes. Green tea has been shown in several studies to have a beneficial effect on diabetes. A retrospective Japanese cohort study showed that those who consumed green tea were one-third less likely to develop type 2 diabetes mellitus.34 A 10-year study from Taiwan found lower body fat and smaller waist circumference in those who consumed green tea regularly.35 A 2014 meta-analysis and systematic review of tea (any type) consumption and the risk of diabetes concluded that 3 cups or more of tea per day was associated with a lower risk of diabetes.36 Another meta-analysis that included 17 RCTs and that focused on green tea concluded that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.37

Adverse effects

There have been concerns about potential hepatotoxicity induced by green tea intake.38 However, a systematic review of 34 RCTs on liver-related adverse events from green tea showed only a slight elevation in liver function tests; no serious liver-related adverse events were reported.38 This review suggested that liver-related adverse events after intake of green tea extracts are rare.38

A meta-analysis that included 17 RCTs found that green tea improves glucose control and A1C values.

Consuming green tea in the diet may lower the risk of adverse effects since the concentration consumed is generally much lower than that found in extracts.

Contraindications to drinking green tea are few. Individuals with caffeine sensitivities could experience insomnia, anxiety, irritability, or upset stomach. Additionally, patients who are taking anticoagulation drugs, such as warfarin, should avoid green tea due to its vitamin K content, which can counter the effects of warfarin. Pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with heart problems or high blood pressure, kidney or liver problems, stomach ulcers, or anxiety disorders should use caution with green tea consumption.

The bottom line

Green tea consumption in the diet appears to be safe and may have beneficial effects on weight, diabetes mellitus risk, cancer risk, dementia, and cardiovascular risk. Patients may want to consider drinking green tea as part of a healthy diet, in combination with exercise.

 

 

Mint/peppermint/menthol

Overview

Mentha piperita, also known as peppermint, is a hybrid between water mint and spearmint. It is found throughout Europe and North America and is commonly used in tea and toothpaste and as a flavoring for gum. It is used both orally and topically. Menthol and methyl salicylate are the main active ingredients in peppermint, and peppermint has calcium channel-blocker effects.39 Menthol has been shown to help regulate cold and pain sensation through the TRPM8 receptor.40 The peppermint herb has been studied in the treatment of multiple conditions.

IBS. It appears that peppermint inhibits spontaneous peristaltic activity, which reduces gastric emptying, decreases basal tone in the gastrointestinal tract, and slows down peristalsis in the gut.39

The American College of Gastroenterology guidelines currently note that there is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.41 A Cochrane review concluded that peppermint appears to be beneficial for IBS-related symptoms and pain.42 In a systematic review of 9 studies from 2014, peppermint oil was found to be more effective than placebo for IBS symptoms such as pain, bloating, gas, and diarrhea.43 The review also indicated that peppermint oil is safe, with heartburn being the most common complaint.43 A 2016 study also found that triple-coated microspheres containing peppermint oil reduced the frequency and intensity of IBS symptoms.44

Non-ulcer dyspepsia. In combination with caraway oil, peppermint oil can be used to reduce symptoms of non-ulcer dyspepsia.45,46 A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study found that 43.3% of subjects improved with a peppermint-caraway oil combination after 8 weeks, compared with 3.5% receiving placebo.46

Barium enema-related colonic spasm. Peppermint can relax the lower esophageal sphincter, and it has been shown to be useful as an antispasmodic agent for barium enema-related colonic spasm.47,48

Itching/skin irritation. Peppermint, when applied topically, has been used to calm pruritus and relieve irritation and inflammation. It has a soothing and cooling effect on the skin. At least one study found it to be effective in the treatment of pruritus gravidarum, although the study population consisted of only 96 subjects.49

Migraine headache. Initial small trials suggest that menthol is likely beneficial for migraine headaches. A pilot trial of 25 patients treated with topical menthol 6% gel for an acute migraine attack showed a significant improvement in headache intensity by 2 hours after gel application.50 In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 35 patients, a menthol 10% solution was shown to be more efficacious as abortive treatment of migraine headaches than placebo.51

Tension headache. A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind crossover study of topical peppermint oil showed a significant clinical reduction in tension headache pain.52 Another small randomized, double-blind trial showed that tiger balm (containing menthol as the main ingredient) also produced statistically significant improvement in tension headache discomfort compared with placebo.53

Musculoskeletal pain. A small study comparing topical menthol to ice for muscle soreness noted decreased perceived discomfort with menthol.54 Menthol has also been shown to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.55

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial concluded that topical menthol acutely reduced pain intensity during the working day in slaughterhouse workers with CTS and should be considered as an effective non-systemic alternative to regular analgesics in the workplace management of chronic and neuropathic pain.56

Adverse effects

Peppermint appears to be safe for most adults when used in small doses, and serious adverse effects are rare.43,57 While peppermint tea appears to be safe in moderate to large amounts, people allergic to plants in the peppermint family (eg, mint, thyme, sage, rosemary, marjoram, basil, lavender) may experience allergic reactions with swelling, wheals, or erythema. Peppermint may also cause heartburn due to relaxation of the cardiac sphincter.

There is moderate-quality evidence for peppermint oil in the treatment of IBS.

Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, flushing, and headache.58 The herb may also be both hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic at extremely high doses.59 Other considerations for women are that it can trigger menstruation and should be avoided during pregnancy. Due to uncertain efficacy in this population, peppermint oil should not be used on the face of infants, young children, or pregnant women.58,59

The bottom line

Peppermint appears to be safe and well-tolerated. It is useful in alleviating IBS symptoms and may be effective in the treatment of non-ulcerative dyspepsia, musculoskeletal pain, headache, and carpal tunnel syndrome.54,55

Read part 2 here.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed November 28, 2017.

2. Wallace M, Pappagallo M. Qutenza: a capsaicin 8% patch for the management of postherpetic neuralgia. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11:15-27.

3. Rains C, Bryson HM. Topical capsaicin. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic potential in post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy and osteoarthritis. Drugs Aging. 1995;7:317-328.

4. Derry S, Sven-Rice A, Cole P, et al. Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD007393.

5. Mason L, Moore RA, Derry S, et al. Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain. BMJ. 2004;328:991.

6. Deal CL, Schnitzer TJ, Lipstein E, et al. Treatment of arthritis with topical capsaicin: a double-blind trial. Clin Ther. 1991;13:383.

7. McCarthy GM, McCarty DJ. Effect of topical capsaicin in the therapy of painful osteoarthritis of the hands. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:604.

8. De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E, et al; Arthritis Research UK Working Group on Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50:911-920.

9. Cameron M, Chrubasik S. Topical herbal therapies for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5):CD010538.

10. Oltean H, Robbins C, van Tulder MW, et al. Herbal medicine for low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD004504.

11. Armstrong EP, Malone DC, McCarberg B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:939-950.

12. Mou J, Paillard F, Turnbull B, et al. Efficacy of Qutenza (capsaicin) 8% patch for neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis of the Qutenza Clinical Trials Database. Pain. 2013;154:1632-1639.

13. Sun-Edelstein C, Mauskop A. Alternative headache treatments: nutraceuticals, behavioral and physical treatments. Headache. 2011;51:469-483.

14. D’Andrea G, Cevoli S, Cologno D. Herbal therapy in migraine. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(Suppl 1):135-140.

15. Diener HC, Rahlfs VW, Danesch U. The first placebo-controlled trial of a special butterbur root extract for the prevention of migraine: reanalysis of efficacy criteria. Eur Neurol. 2004;51:89-97.

16. Lipton RB, Göbel H, Einhäupl KM, et al. Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology. 2004;63:2240-2244.

17. Pothmann R, Danesch U. Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract. Headache. 2005;45:196-203.

18. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353.

19. American Academy of Neurology. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: [RETIRED]. Sept 16, 2015. Available at: http://n.neurology.org/content/78/17/1346. Accessed December 14, 2017.

20. Man LX. Complementary and alternative medicine for allergic rhinitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17:226-231.

21. Guo R, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;99:483-495.

22. Daniel O, Mauskop A. Nutraceuticals in acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016;18:14.

23. Chacko SM, Thambi PT, Kuttan R, et al. Beneficial effects of green tea: a literature review. Chin Med. 2010;6:13.

24. Naghma K, Hasan M. Tea polyphenols for health promotion. Life Sciences. 2007;81:519-533.

25. Okello EJ, McDougall GJ, Kumar S, et al. In vitro protective effects of colon-available extract of Camellia sinensis (tea) against hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid (Aβ((1-42))) induced cytotoxicity in differentiated PC12 cells. Phytomedicine. 2011;15;18:691-696.

26. Schmidt A, Hammann F, Wölnerhanssen B, et al. Green tea extract enhances parieto-frontal connectivity during working memory processing. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014;231:3879-3888.

27. Tomata Y, Sugiyama K, Kaiho Y, et al. Green tea consumption and the risk of incident dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;24:881-889.

28. Takechi R, Alfonso H, Hiramatsu N, et al. Elevated plasma and urinary concentrations of green tea catechins associated with improved plasma lipid profile in healthy Japanese women. Nutr Res. 2016;36:220-226.

29. Kim A, Chiu A, Barone MK, et al. Green tea catechins decrease total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111:1720-1729.

30. Zhang C, Qin YY, Wei X, et al. Tea consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes and total mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:103-113.

31. Imai K, Suga K, Nakachi K. Cancer-preventive effects of drinking green tea among a Japanese population. Prev Med. 1997;26:769-775.

32. Yuan JM. Cancer prevention by green tea: evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(6 Suppl):1676S-1681S.

33. Kurahashi N, Sasazuki S, Iwasaki M, et al. Green tea consumption and prostate cancer risk in Japanese men: a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:71-77.

34. Iso H, Date C, Wakai K, et al. The relationship between green tea and total caffeine intake and risk for self-reported type 2 diabetes among Japanese adults. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:554-562.

35. Kim HM, Kim J. The effects of green tea on obesity and type 2 diabetes. Diab Metabol J. 2013;37:173-175.

36. Yang J, Mao Q, Xu H, et al. Tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005632.

37. Liu K, Zhou R, Wang B, et al. Effect of green tea on glucose control and insulin sensitivity: a meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:340-348.

38. Isomura T, Suzuki S, Origasa H, et al. Liver-related safety assessment of green tea extracts in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:1340.

39. Tillisch K. Complementary and alternative medicine for gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Med (Lond). 2007;7:224-227.

40. Knowlton WM, McKemy DD. TRPM8: from cold to cancer, peppermint to pain. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011;12:68-77.

41. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Lacy BE, et al. Task Force on the Management of Functional Bowel Disorders. American College of Gastroenterology monograph on the management of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(Suppl 1):S2-S26;quiz S27.

42. Ruepert L, Quartero AO, de Wit NJ, et al. Bulking agents, antispasmodics and antidepressants for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD003460.

43. Khanna R, MacDonald JK, Levesque BG. Peppermint oil for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:505-512.

44. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. A novel delivery system of peppermint oil is an effective therapy for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Digest Dis Sci. 2016;61:560-571.

45. Holtmann G, Haag S, Adam B, et al. Effects of a fixed combination of peppermint oil and caraway oil on symptoms and quality of life in patients suffering from functional dyspepsia. Phytomedicine. 2003;10(suppl 4):56-57.

46. Madisch A, Heydenreich CJ, Wieland V, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with a fixed peppermint oil and caraway oil combination preparation as compared to cisapride. A multicenter, reference-controlled double-blind equivalence study. Arzneimittelforschung. 1999;49:925-932.

47. Asao T, Kuwano H, Ide M, et al. Spasmolytic effect of peppermint oil in barium during double-contrast barium enema compared with Buscopan. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:301-305.

48. Sparks MJ, O’Sullivan P, Herrington AA, et al. Does peppermint oil relieve spasm during barium enema? Br J Radiol. 1995;68:841-843.

49. Akhavan Amjadi M, Mojab F, Kamranpour SB. The effect of peppermint oil on symptomatic treatment of pruritus in pregnant women. Iranian J Pharm Res. 2012;11:1073-1077.

50. St Cyr A, Chen A, Bradley KC, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of STOPAIN for a migraine attack. Front Neurol. 2015;6:11.

51. Borhani Haghighi A, Motazedian S, Rezaii R, et al. Cutaneous application of menthol 10% solution as an abortive treatment of migraine without aura: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossed-over study. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64:451-456.

52. Gobel H, Fresenius J, Heinze A, et al. Effectiveness of oleum menthae piperitae and paracetamol in therapy of headache of the tension type [German]. Nervenarzt. 1996;67:672-681.

53. Schattner P, Randerson D. Tiger Balm as a treatment of tension headache. A clinical trial in general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 1996;25:216-220.

54. Johar P, Grover V, Topp R, et al. A comparison of topical menthol to ice on pain, evoked tetanic and voluntary force during delayed onset muscle soreness. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7:314-322.

55. Topp R, Brosky JA Jr, Pieschel D. The effect of either topical menthol or a placebo on functioning and knee pain among patients with knee OA. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36:92-99.

56. Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Brandt M, et al. Acute effect of topical menthol on chronic pain in slaughterhouse workers with carpal tunnel syndrome: triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:310913.

57. Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of mentha piperita (peppermint) oil, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf extract, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf, and mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf water. Int J Toxicol. 2001;20(Suppl 3):61-73.

58. Klingler B, Chadhary S. Peppermint oil. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:1027-1030.

59. Nath SS, Pandey C, Roy D. A near fatal case of high dose peppermint oil ingestion—lessons learnt. Indian J Anaesth. 2012; 56:582-584.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed November 28, 2017.

2. Wallace M, Pappagallo M. Qutenza: a capsaicin 8% patch for the management of postherpetic neuralgia. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11:15-27.

3. Rains C, Bryson HM. Topical capsaicin. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic potential in post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy and osteoarthritis. Drugs Aging. 1995;7:317-328.

4. Derry S, Sven-Rice A, Cole P, et al. Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD007393.

5. Mason L, Moore RA, Derry S, et al. Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain. BMJ. 2004;328:991.

6. Deal CL, Schnitzer TJ, Lipstein E, et al. Treatment of arthritis with topical capsaicin: a double-blind trial. Clin Ther. 1991;13:383.

7. McCarthy GM, McCarty DJ. Effect of topical capsaicin in the therapy of painful osteoarthritis of the hands. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:604.

8. De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E, et al; Arthritis Research UK Working Group on Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50:911-920.

9. Cameron M, Chrubasik S. Topical herbal therapies for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5):CD010538.

10. Oltean H, Robbins C, van Tulder MW, et al. Herbal medicine for low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD004504.

11. Armstrong EP, Malone DC, McCarberg B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:939-950.

12. Mou J, Paillard F, Turnbull B, et al. Efficacy of Qutenza (capsaicin) 8% patch for neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis of the Qutenza Clinical Trials Database. Pain. 2013;154:1632-1639.

13. Sun-Edelstein C, Mauskop A. Alternative headache treatments: nutraceuticals, behavioral and physical treatments. Headache. 2011;51:469-483.

14. D’Andrea G, Cevoli S, Cologno D. Herbal therapy in migraine. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(Suppl 1):135-140.

15. Diener HC, Rahlfs VW, Danesch U. The first placebo-controlled trial of a special butterbur root extract for the prevention of migraine: reanalysis of efficacy criteria. Eur Neurol. 2004;51:89-97.

16. Lipton RB, Göbel H, Einhäupl KM, et al. Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology. 2004;63:2240-2244.

17. Pothmann R, Danesch U. Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract. Headache. 2005;45:196-203.

18. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353.

19. American Academy of Neurology. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: [RETIRED]. Sept 16, 2015. Available at: http://n.neurology.org/content/78/17/1346. Accessed December 14, 2017.

20. Man LX. Complementary and alternative medicine for allergic rhinitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17:226-231.

21. Guo R, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;99:483-495.

22. Daniel O, Mauskop A. Nutraceuticals in acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016;18:14.

23. Chacko SM, Thambi PT, Kuttan R, et al. Beneficial effects of green tea: a literature review. Chin Med. 2010;6:13.

24. Naghma K, Hasan M. Tea polyphenols for health promotion. Life Sciences. 2007;81:519-533.

25. Okello EJ, McDougall GJ, Kumar S, et al. In vitro protective effects of colon-available extract of Camellia sinensis (tea) against hydrogen peroxide and beta-amyloid (Aβ((1-42))) induced cytotoxicity in differentiated PC12 cells. Phytomedicine. 2011;15;18:691-696.

26. Schmidt A, Hammann F, Wölnerhanssen B, et al. Green tea extract enhances parieto-frontal connectivity during working memory processing. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014;231:3879-3888.

27. Tomata Y, Sugiyama K, Kaiho Y, et al. Green tea consumption and the risk of incident dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;24:881-889.

28. Takechi R, Alfonso H, Hiramatsu N, et al. Elevated plasma and urinary concentrations of green tea catechins associated with improved plasma lipid profile in healthy Japanese women. Nutr Res. 2016;36:220-226.

29. Kim A, Chiu A, Barone MK, et al. Green tea catechins decrease total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111:1720-1729.

30. Zhang C, Qin YY, Wei X, et al. Tea consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes and total mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:103-113.

31. Imai K, Suga K, Nakachi K. Cancer-preventive effects of drinking green tea among a Japanese population. Prev Med. 1997;26:769-775.

32. Yuan JM. Cancer prevention by green tea: evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(6 Suppl):1676S-1681S.

33. Kurahashi N, Sasazuki S, Iwasaki M, et al. Green tea consumption and prostate cancer risk in Japanese men: a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:71-77.

34. Iso H, Date C, Wakai K, et al. The relationship between green tea and total caffeine intake and risk for self-reported type 2 diabetes among Japanese adults. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:554-562.

35. Kim HM, Kim J. The effects of green tea on obesity and type 2 diabetes. Diab Metabol J. 2013;37:173-175.

36. Yang J, Mao Q, Xu H, et al. Tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005632.

37. Liu K, Zhou R, Wang B, et al. Effect of green tea on glucose control and insulin sensitivity: a meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:340-348.

38. Isomura T, Suzuki S, Origasa H, et al. Liver-related safety assessment of green tea extracts in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:1340.

39. Tillisch K. Complementary and alternative medicine for gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Med (Lond). 2007;7:224-227.

40. Knowlton WM, McKemy DD. TRPM8: from cold to cancer, peppermint to pain. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011;12:68-77.

41. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Lacy BE, et al. Task Force on the Management of Functional Bowel Disorders. American College of Gastroenterology monograph on the management of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(Suppl 1):S2-S26;quiz S27.

42. Ruepert L, Quartero AO, de Wit NJ, et al. Bulking agents, antispasmodics and antidepressants for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD003460.

43. Khanna R, MacDonald JK, Levesque BG. Peppermint oil for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:505-512.

44. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. A novel delivery system of peppermint oil is an effective therapy for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Digest Dis Sci. 2016;61:560-571.

45. Holtmann G, Haag S, Adam B, et al. Effects of a fixed combination of peppermint oil and caraway oil on symptoms and quality of life in patients suffering from functional dyspepsia. Phytomedicine. 2003;10(suppl 4):56-57.

46. Madisch A, Heydenreich CJ, Wieland V, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with a fixed peppermint oil and caraway oil combination preparation as compared to cisapride. A multicenter, reference-controlled double-blind equivalence study. Arzneimittelforschung. 1999;49:925-932.

47. Asao T, Kuwano H, Ide M, et al. Spasmolytic effect of peppermint oil in barium during double-contrast barium enema compared with Buscopan. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:301-305.

48. Sparks MJ, O’Sullivan P, Herrington AA, et al. Does peppermint oil relieve spasm during barium enema? Br J Radiol. 1995;68:841-843.

49. Akhavan Amjadi M, Mojab F, Kamranpour SB. The effect of peppermint oil on symptomatic treatment of pruritus in pregnant women. Iranian J Pharm Res. 2012;11:1073-1077.

50. St Cyr A, Chen A, Bradley KC, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of STOPAIN for a migraine attack. Front Neurol. 2015;6:11.

51. Borhani Haghighi A, Motazedian S, Rezaii R, et al. Cutaneous application of menthol 10% solution as an abortive treatment of migraine without aura: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossed-over study. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64:451-456.

52. Gobel H, Fresenius J, Heinze A, et al. Effectiveness of oleum menthae piperitae and paracetamol in therapy of headache of the tension type [German]. Nervenarzt. 1996;67:672-681.

53. Schattner P, Randerson D. Tiger Balm as a treatment of tension headache. A clinical trial in general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 1996;25:216-220.

54. Johar P, Grover V, Topp R, et al. A comparison of topical menthol to ice on pain, evoked tetanic and voluntary force during delayed onset muscle soreness. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7:314-322.

55. Topp R, Brosky JA Jr, Pieschel D. The effect of either topical menthol or a placebo on functioning and knee pain among patients with knee OA. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36:92-99.

56. Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Brandt M, et al. Acute effect of topical menthol on chronic pain in slaughterhouse workers with carpal tunnel syndrome: triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:310913.

57. Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of mentha piperita (peppermint) oil, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf extract, mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf, and mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf water. Int J Toxicol. 2001;20(Suppl 3):61-73.

58. Klingler B, Chadhary S. Peppermint oil. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:1027-1030.

59. Nath SS, Pandey C, Roy D. A near fatal case of high dose peppermint oil ingestion—lessons learnt. Indian J Anaesth. 2012; 56:582-584.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(1)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(1)
Page Number
10-16
Page Number
10-16
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The evidence for herbal and botanical remedies, Part 1
Display Headline
The evidence for herbal and botanical remedies, Part 1
Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Consider capsaicin as an alternative to oral and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to treat musculoskeletal pain in patients who don't respond to the latter. B

› Consider ordering liver function monitoring for patients using butterbur because of the risk of toxicity. C

› Recommend that patients consider drinking green tea as part of a healthy diet. B

› Recommend peppermint to patients with irritable bowel syndrome. B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
PubMed ID
29309469
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Herbals
Article PDF Media

The evidence for herbal and botanical remedies, Part 2

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 08:51
Display Headline
The evidence for herbal and botanical remedies, Part 2

More than a third of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 Unfortunately, the public’s enthusiasm for herbal products is not always consistent with the scientific evidence supporting their use. In part one of this series, we discussed the studies that have been done on capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint. In this installment, we outline the research on 5 additional remedies: turmeric/curcumin, which may be of benefit in ulcerative colitis; chamomile, which appears to offer relief to patients with anxiety; rosemary, which may help treat alopecia; as well as coffee and cocoa, which may have some cardiovascular benefits (TABLE).

Turmeric/curcumin

Overview

Turmeric (Curcuma longa), a relative of ginger, has been used for 4000 years to treat a variety of conditions.2,3 Curcumin is the yellow pigment isolated from the rhizomes of Curcuma longa, commonly known as turmeric.3 Turmeric powder contains 5% curcumin, which is the main biologically active compound. Although it grows in many tropical locations, most turmeric is grown in India, where it is used as a main ingredient in curry. The roots and bulbs of turmeric that are used in medicine are generally boiled and dried, which results in a yellow powder.

Turmeric has been used in both Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine for its anti-inflammatory properties, in the treatment of digestive and liver problems, to fight infections, and to help heal skin diseases and wounds.3-7

Functional GI disorders. A recent review noted that curcumin has been shown in several preclinical studies and uncontrolled clinical trials to have effects on gut inflammation, gut permeability, and the brain-gut axis, especially in functional GI disorders.7 A double-blind, placebo-controlled study from 1989 found that turmeric reduced symptoms of bloating and gas in subjects suffering from undifferentiated dyspepsia.8

Ulcerative colitis (UC). A 2012 Cochrane review noted that curcumin appears to be a safe and effective therapy for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC when given as adjunctive therapy along with mesalamine or sulfasalazine.9 In a 2015 randomized controlled trial (RCT), the addition of curcumin to mesalamine therapy was superior to the combination of placebo and mesalamine in inducing clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with mild-to-moderate active UC, producing no apparent adverse effects.10

Osteoarthritis (OA). Because of turmeric’s ability to reduce inflammation, it may help relieve OA pain.3 Clinical evidence is scant for the anti-arthritic efficacy of turmeric dietary supplements, although animal studies indicate that turmeric prevents inflammation through regulation of NF-kappaB-regulated genes that regulate the immune and inflammatory response.6 Inflammatory cell influx, joint levels of prostaglandin E2, and periarticular osteoclast formation were also inhibited by turmeric extract treatment.6

A 2013 review of turmeric for OA concluded that observational studies and in vitro results are promising for the use of curcumin for OA, but well-designed clinical studies were lacking and are needed to support the efficacy of curcumin in OA patients.11 How­ever, in a 2014 randomized trial of 367 patients, turmeric appeared to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen for the treatment of pain and disability in adults with knee OA.12 The curcumin (turmeric) group also had fewer adverse effects.12

Cancer. There has been a great deal of research on turmeric’s anti-cancer properties, but clinical evidence is lacking. In vitro evidence, animal studies, and small clinical trials suggest that curcumin may help prevent or treat several types of cancers, but the overall evidence is poor. Nonetheless, curcumin and turmeric have been or are currently being evaluated for the treatment or prevention of prostate, liver, breast, skin, gynecologic, hematologic, pulmonary, thymic, bone, brain, and colon cancer.13-18

Oral submucous fibrosis. A small randomized trial found improvement in oral function with curcumin lozenges, when compared to placebo, indicating that turmeric may hold promise as a treatment of oral submucous fibrosis.19

Uveitis. A small pilot study of 32 patients suggested that oral curcumin may be as effective as corticosteroids for uveitis.20

Heart disease. Curcumin may have a cardiovascular protective role, as it has been shown to reduce atherosclerosis, but a reduction in myocardial infarction or stroke has not been documented.21

Alzheimer’s dementia. Animal studies have shown a reduction in amyloid plaque formation with curcumin.22

Adverse effects (and precautions)

Turmeric in food is considered safe. A variety of animal and human studies have also indicated that curcumin is safe and well tolerated, even at very high doses.13 However, taking large amounts of turmeric for long periods of time could cause stomach upset and gastric ulcers. In addition, patients with gallstones or bile obstruction should use it with caution due to increased bile production.7

Because turmeric may lower blood sugar levels, patients with diabetes should monitor for hypoglycemia when using turmeric in combination with diabetic medications. Similarly, those with bleeding disorders taking blood thinners should use turmeric and curcumin with caution, because it can inhibit platelet aggregation.23

Although it is safe to eat foods with turmeric during pregnancy, pregnant and breastfeeding women should not take turmeric supplements, as the safety of large doses in pregnancy is unknown.

The bottom line

Turmeric/curcumin has anti-inflammatory properties and may be useful as an adjunct for ulcerative colitis and to improve the symptoms of OA. It may also have anti-carcinogenic properties, although definitive data are lacking. Those with a history of gastrointestinal conditions such as gastric ulcer, patients taking blood thinners, and patients with diabetes who are prone to low blood sugar levels should use turmeric/curcumin with caution.

 

 

Chamomile

Overview

Chamomile, a member of the Asteraceae/Compositae family, is one of the oldest herbal medicines. It has been used for hay fever, inflammation, muscle spasms, menstrual disorders, insomnia, ulcers, wounds, gastrointestinal disorders, rheumatic pain, and hemorrhoids. Essential oils of chamomile are used extensively in cosmetics and aromatherapy. Many different preparations have been developed, the most popular being herbal tea.24

A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder.

Individuals with a hypersensitivity to plants of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family such as ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), marigold flower (Calendula officinalis), and chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum spp.) may show a similar reaction to chamomile.25

Anxiety. A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate GAD.26 Another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found oral chamomile extract was efficacious and well-tolerated in patients experiencing mild to moderate GAD and may provide an alternative therapeutic anxiolytic for patients with mild GAD.25 In addition to its anxiolytic activity, chamomile may also provide clinically meaningful antidepressant activity.26

Insomnia. Chamomile may have some impact on sleep diary measures (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, and number of awakenings) relative to placebo in adults with chronic primary insomnia, according to a small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial involving 34 patients.27 However, a systematic review found no statistically significant difference between any herbal medicine (including chamomile) and placebo, for clinical efficacy in patients with insomnia. A similar, or smaller, number of adverse events per person were reported with chamomile compared with placebo, suggesting safe use.28

Infantile colic. A small prospective double-blind study on the use of chamomile-containing tea on infantile colic showed statistically significant symptom improvement in tea-treated infants. The study did note, however, that prolonged ingestion of herbal teas may lead to decreased milk intake.29,30

Adverse effects

As noted earlier, a systematic review found that the number of adverse events per person reported with chamomile was comparable to the number associated with placebo, suggesting that it is safe.28

The bottom line

Chamomile appears to be safe with minimal adverse effects and may be effective for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and infantile colic.

Rosemary

Overview

Rosemary, officially known as Rosmarinus officinalis, is a medicinal evergreen plant native to the Mediterranean area that appears to increase microcapillary perfusion.31

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia, with minimal adverse effects.

Alopecia. A randomized double-blind controlled trial found that essential oils including rosemary oil (as well as thyme, lavender, and cedarwood) massaged into the scalp improved hair growth in almost half of patients with alopecia areata after 7 months.32 Another randomized trial comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2% for androgenetic alopecia showed a significant increase in hair count at the 6-month endpoint compared with the baseline, but no significant difference was found between the study groups regarding hair count either at Month 3 or Month 6 (P >.05). 31

Adverse effects

In the randomized trial described above comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2%, adverse effects appeared to be rare for topical rosemary oil. Scalp itching was more frequent in the minoxidil group.31

The bottom line

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia with minimal adverse effects.

 

 

Coffee/caffeine

Overview

Coffee is one of the most widely used botanicals with approximately 3.5 billion cups of coffee consumed per day worldwide. It is a popular beverage because of its unique aromatic taste and its use as a central nervous system stimulant. The coffee tree (genus coffea) is found throughout Latin America, Africa, and eastern Asia. Two of the most common commercially grown species are Coffea arabica (Arabicas) and Coffea canephora (Robusta). Processing and roasting methods may differ and produce variations in flavor and aroma. The degree of roasting also affects the caffeine content.

Coffee consumption leads to increased alertness and can boost mental performance. Based on the literature and US Food and Drug Administration recommendations, four 8-oz cups of coffee (about 400 mg of caffeine) daily is an acceptable average amount of caffeine. More than 500 mg/d is considered excessive use of coffee.33,34

Overall mortality. A 2008 study showed that regular coffee was not associated with increased or decreased mortality in both men and women.35 However, more recent studies show an inverse relationship between mortality and coffee consumption.

Specifically, a 2014 meta-analysis found an inverse relationship between coffee and mortality.36 A large prospective cohort study from 2015 that included 79,234 women and 76,704 men found that drinking coffee was inversely associated with overall mortality.37 In this cohort study, an inverse association were observed for deaths from heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and self-harm.37 While mechanisms were not analyzed, coffee may reduce mortality risk by affecting inflammation, lung function, insulin sensitivity, and depression.

Cardiovascular disease. Coffee consumption may modestly reduce the risk of stroke, according to a prospective cohort study of 83,076 women from the Nurses’ Health Study who were followed for 24 years.38 Reduced cardiovascular mortality was also found in a large prospective cohort study, as noted in the mortality discussion above.37 A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that coffee consumption is inversely associated with cardiovascular mortality. Drinking 3 or 4 cups a day appears to be the amount that may decrease one’s risk of death when compared to those who do not drink coffee at all.36

Liver disease. Friedrich et al performed a study involving 379 patients with end stage liver disease, and found that coffee consumption delayed the progression of disease in patients with both alcoholic liver disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis.39 Coffee consumption also increased long-term survival after liver transplantation.39 However, the study found that coffee did not have any effect on patients with chronic viral hepatitis.

In a 2016 meta-analysis, caffeinated coffee consumption reduced hepatic fibrosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, although caffeine consumption did not reduce the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.40 Another meta-analysis, including 16 studies, also found caffeine reduced the risk for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.41

Depression. Based on 2 different systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2016, coffee consumption appears to have a significant protective effect, decreasing the risk of developing depression.40,42

Alzheimer’s disease/dementia. Coffee, tea, and caffeine consumption show promise in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Individuals who consume one to 2 cups of coffee per day had a decreased incidence of mild cognitive impairment compared to non-drinkers.43 A 2015 Japanese study also found an inverse association between coffee consumption and dementia among women, nonsmokers, and those who do not drink alcohol.44 Most recently, a 2016 study, the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, looked at incident dementia rates in women >65 years of age with high vs low caffeine intake. Women with higher caffeine intake were less likely to develop dementia or any cognitive impairment compared with those consuming <64 mg/day.45

Type 2 diabetes. A 2009 prospective cohort study, which included 40,011 participants followed for more than 10 years, found that drinking at least 3 cups of coffee or tea was associated with a lowered risk of type 2 diabetes.46 A 2009 systematic review of 20 cohort studies showed that high intakes of coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea are associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.47

A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants found an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.

Melanoma. A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants demon­strated an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.47 The risk of melanoma decreased by 3% and 4% for one cup/day of total coffee and caffeinated coffee consumption, respectively. Furthermore, a 2016 meta-analysis found that caffeinated coffee may have greater chemopreventive effects against melanoma than decaffeinated coffee.48

Adverse effects

Despite the many potential benefits of coffee, caffeine is a potent drug that should be used with caution.49 People with underlying heart problems should avoid caffeine due to concern that it may cause palpitations from tachycardia. It may worsen anxiety problems or depression. Coffee may increase the production of stomach acids, which can worsen acid reflux or stomach ulcers.

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced CV events, and a reduction in liver disease progression.

Caffeine is a potent diuretic and may decrease absorption of calcium and cause OA. Caffeine may cause dependence and withdrawal symptoms. Some of the symptoms of withdrawal include drowsiness, headaches, irritability, nausea, and vomiting. It may disrupt sleeping patterns by causing jitters and sleeplessness.49 Additionally, large amounts of caffeine may cause overdose and death.

The bottom line

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced cardiovascular events, and a reduction in liver disease progression. Coffee may also have some utility for improving cognitive function and reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Caffeinated coffee should be limited to no more than 32 oz per day, due to the risk of insomnia, palpitations, anxiety, and gastritis.

 

 

Chocolate/cocoa

Overview

Few natural products have been claimed to successfully treat as many disorders as chocolate. The modern concept of chocolate as food has overshadowed its traditional medicinal use, although recent trials have looked at evidence for some of its traditional uses. Chocolate is processed from the pod of the cacao plant. The earliest evidence for its medical use is in Mayan civilizations, and for most of its approximately 4000-year history, chocolate was consumed as a bitter drink referred to as the “drink of the Gods.” The traditional drink was mixed with water, vanilla, honey, chili peppers, and other spices. Important components in chocolate include flavonoids (antioxidants), cocoa butter, caffeine, theobromine, and phenylethylamine.  

Chocolate has stimulating, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and cardioprotective effects, and improves the bioavailability of nitric oxide, which can improve blood pressure and platelet function.50 Epicatechin (an antioxidant) in cocoa is primarily responsible for its favorable impact on vascular endothelium via its effect on both acute and chronic upregulation of nitric oxide production. Other cardiovascular effects are mediated by the anti-inflammatory effects of cocoa polyphenols, and modulated through the activity of NF-kappaB.51

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.

Dark chocolate appears to have the greatest benefit, as milk binds to antioxidants in chocolate, making them unavailable. Therefore, milk chocolate is not a good antioxidant source. There is no specific amount of chocolate that is known to be ideal, but an average of one to 2 ounces per day is often used in studies.

Cardiovascular effects. Chocolate does contain saturated fat, but a comparative, double-blind study found that short-term use of cocoa powder lowered plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, oxidized LDL, and apo B concentrations, and the plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentration increased, relative to baseline in the low-, middle-, and high-cocoa groups.52 A small randomized crossover trial without clinical outcomes indicated that chocolate may increase HDL cholesterol without increasing weight.53

A meta-analysis of short-term (2-12 weeks) treatment with dark chocolate/cocoa products showed reductions in LDL and total cholesterol, but no changes in HDL or triglycerides.54 Another meta-analysis of RCTs, however, showed no short-term effect of cocoa/chocolate on lipid concentrations.55 A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study of 62 patients with diabetes and hypertension showed that high polyphenol chocolate improved triglyceride levels.56

Chocolate intake was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline, with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar per week.

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.57-59 A best case scenario analysis using a Markov model to predict the long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of daily dark chocolate consumption in a population with metabolic syndrome at high risk of cardiovascular disease concluded that daily consumption of dark chocolate can reduce cardiovascular events by 85 per 10,000 population treated over 10 years. The study concluded that $42 could be cost effectively spent per person per year on prevention strategies using dark chocolate.59

In addition, a meta-analysis of 7 observational studies showed that high levels of chocolate consumption (any type) were associated with a 29% reduction in stroke compared with the lowest levels of chocolate intake.57 Results of a similar meta-analysis from Neurology in 2012 also suggested that moderate chocolate consumption (any type) may lower the risk of stroke.60

That said, 2 systematic reviews specifically relating to the risk of coronary heart disease and chocolate intake were inconclusive.61-62

Blood pressure (BP). An RCT published in JAMA indicates that inclusion of small amounts of polyphenol-rich dark chocolate as part of a usual diet efficiently reduced BP and improved the formation of vasodilative nitric oxide.63 A meta-analysis of 10 RCTs also showed mean BP change in the active cocoa treatment arms across all trials was -4.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), -5.9 to -3.2; P<.001) for systolic BP and -2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.9 to -1.2; P<.001) for diastolic BP.64

A Cochrane Review meta-analysis of 20 studies revealed a statistically significant BP-reducing effect of flavanol-rich cocoa products compared with control in short-term trials of 2 to 18 weeks' duration.65 Because studies have shown improvement in BP with chocolate intake, investigations into a role of chocolate in the prevention of preeclampsia have been undertaken. In some studies, chocolate intake was associated with reduced odds of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.66,67

Diabetes. Chocolate may exert significant vascular protection because of its antioxidant properties and possible increase of nitric oxide bioavailability, which can influence glucose uptake. A small trial comparing the effects of either dark or white chocolate bars (which do not contain the polyphenols) showed improved BP and glucose and insulin responses to an oral glucose tolerance test in healthy subjects on dark chocolate, but not white chocolate.68 A comparison of chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes in the Physicians’ Health Study showed an inverse relationship between chocolate intake with incident disease, but this association appeared only to apply in younger and normal-body weight men after controlling for comprehensive lifestyles, including total energy consumption.69

Fatigue. The effect of chocolate on a person’s energy level has been noted for centuries.70 A small randomized trial showed improved energy levels in those treated with higher chocolate intakes. In a double-blind, randomized, clinical pilot crossover study, high cocoa liquor/polyphenol rich chocolate, reduced fatigue in subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome.71

Anxiety. A small randomized trial showed chocolate decreased anxiety in high-anxiety trait subjects and improved the anxiety level and the energy levels of low-anxiety trait participants.72

Eye effects. The literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the effect of flavonoids on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. However, a meta-analysis showed that flavonoids have a promising role in improving visual function in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and appear to play a part in both improving and slowing the progression of visual field loss.73

Cognitive decline. Chocolate intake (any type) was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92) with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar or one tablespoon of cocoa powder per week. This protective effect was observed only among subjects with an average daily consumption of caffeine <75  mg (69% of the participants; RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82).74

The bottom line

Chocolate with high cocoa content (dark chocolate) appears to be safe and beneficial as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle that includes exercise and stress reduction to decrease cardiovascular risk and may improve energy levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed Nov 28, 2017.

2. Aggarwal BB. Curcumin-free turmeric exhibits anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities: identification of novel components of turmeric. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57:1529-1542.

3. Henrotin Y, Clutterbuck AL, Allaway D, et al. Biological actions of curcumin on articular chondrocytes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18:141-149.

4. Asher GN, Spelman K. Clinical utility of curcumin extract. Altern Ther Health Med. 2013;19:20-22.

5. Phan TT, See P, Lee ST, et al. Protective effects of curcumin against oxidative damage on skin cells in vitro: its implication for wound healing. J Trauma. 2001;51:927-931.

6. Funk JL, Frye JB, Oyarzo JN, et al. Efficacy and mechanism of action of turmeric supplements in the treatment of experimental arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3452-3464.

7. Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Chili peppers, curcumins, and prebiotics in gastrointestinal health and disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18:19.

8. Thamlikitkul V, Bunyapraphatsara N, Dechatiwongse T, et al. Randomized double blind study of Curcuma domestica Val. for dyspepsia. J Med Assoc Thai. 1989;72:613-620.

9. Kumar S, Ahuja V, Sankar MJ, et al. Curcumin for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD008424.

10. Lang A, Salomon N, Wu JC, et al. Curcumin in combination with mesalamine induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1444-1449.e1.

11. Henrotin Y, Priem F, Mobasheri A. Curcumin: a new paradigm and therapeutic opportunity for the treatment of osteoarthritis: curcumin for osteoarthritis management. Springerplus. 2013;2:56.

12. Kuptniratsaikul V, Dajpratham P, Taechaarpornkul W, et al. Efficacy and safety of Curcuma domestica extracts compared with ibuprofen in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:451-458.

13. Shehzad A, Lee J, Lee YS. Curcumin in various cancers. Biofactors. 2013;39:56-68.

14. Sordillo LA, Sordillo PP, Helson L. Curcumin for the treatment of glioblastoma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:6373-6378.

15. Darvesh AS, Aggarwal BB, Bishayee A. Curcumin and liver cancer: a review. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2012;13:218-228.

16. Nagaraju GP, Aliya S, Zafar SF, et al. The impact of curcumin on breast cancer. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012;4:996-1007.

17. Johnson JJ, Mukhtar H. Curcumin for chemoprevention of colon cancer. Cancer Lett. 2007;255:170-181.

18. Dorai T, Cao YC, Dorai B, et al. Therapeutic potential of curcumin in human prostate cancer. III. Curcumin inhibits proliferation, induces apoptosis, and inhibits angiogenesis of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in vivo. Prostate. 2001;47:293-303.

19. Hazarey VK, Sakrikar AR, Ganvir SM. Efficacy of curcumin in the treatment for oral submucous fibrosis - a randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2015;19:145-152.

20. Lal B, Kapoor AK, Asthana OP, et al. Efficacy of curcumin in the management of chronic anterior uveitis. Phytother Res. 1999;13:318-322.

21. Kapakos G, Youreva V, Srivastava AK. Cardiovascular protection by curcumin: molecular aspects. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2012;49:306-315.

22. Yang F, Lim GP, Begum AN, et al. Curcumin inhibits formation of amyloid beta oligomers and fibrils, binds plaques, and reduces amyloid in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:5892-5901.

23. Heck AM, DeWitt BA, Lukes AL. Potential interactions between alternative therapies and warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57:1221-1227.

24. Srivastava JK, Shankar E, Gupta S. Chamomile: a herbal medicine of the past with bright future. Mol Med Rep. 2010;3:895-901.

25. Ross SM. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): efficacy of standardized matricaria recutita (german chamomile) extract in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Holistic Nursing Practice. 2013;27:366- 368.

26. Amsterdam JD, Li Y, Soeller I, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:378-382.

27. Zick SM, Wright BD, Sen A, et al. Preliminary examination of the efficacy and safety of a standardized chamomile extract for chronic primary insomnia: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011;11:78.

28. Leach MJ, Page AT. Herbal medicine for insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2015;24:1-12.

29. Weizman Z, Alkrinawi S, Goldfarb D, et al. Efficacy of herbal tea preparation in infantile colic. J Pediatr. 1993;122:650.

30. Crotteau CA, Wright ST, Eglash A. Clinical inquiries. What is the best treatment for infants with colic? J Fam Pract. 2006;55:634-636.

31. Panahi Y, Taghizadeh M, Marzony ET, et al. Rosemary oil vs minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a randomized comparative trial. Skinmed. 2015;13:15-21.

32. Hay IC, Jamieson M, Ormerod AD. Randomized trial of aromatherapy. Successful treatment for alopecia areata. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1349-1352.

33. Caffeine and kids: FDA takes a closer look. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm350570.htm. Accessed: November 1, 2017.

34. Torpy JM, Livingston EH. Energy Drinks. JAMA. 2013;309:297.

35. Lopez-Garcia E, van Dam RM, Li TY, et al. The relationship of coffee consumption with mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:904-914.

36. Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, et al. Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180:763-775.

37. Loftfield E, Freedman ND, Graubard BI, et al. Association of coffee consumption with overall and cause-specific mortality in a large US prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182:1010-1022.

38. Lopez-Garcia E, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Rexrode KM, et al. Coffee consumption and risk of stroke in women. Circulation. 2009;119:1116-1123.

39. Friedrich K, Smit M, Wannhoff A, et al. Coffee consumption protects against progression in liver cirrhosis and increases long-term survival after liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1470-1475.

40. Wang L, Shen X, Wu Y, et al. Coffee and caffeine consumption and depression: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50:228-242.

41. Liu F, Wang X, Wu G, et al. Coffee consumption decreases risks for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142457.

42. Grosso G, Micek A, Castellano S, et al. Coffee, tea, caffeine and risk of depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016;60:223-234.

43. Solfrizzi V, Panza F, Imbimbo BP, et al. Italian longitudinal study on aging working group. Coffee consumption habits and the risk of mild cognitive impairment: The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47:889-899.

44. Sugiyama K, Tomata Y, Kaiho Y, et al. Association between coffee consumption and incident risk of disabling dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;50:491-500.

45. Driscoll I, Shumaker SA, Snively BM, et al. Relationships between caffeine intake and risk for probable dementia or global cognitive impairment: The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71:1596-1602.

46. van Dieren S, Uiterwaal CS, van der Schouw YT, et al. Coffee and tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2009;52:2561-2569.

47. Wang J, Li X, Zhang D. Coffee consumption and the risk of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55:1317-1329.

48. Liu J, Shen B, Shi M, et al. Higher caffeinated coffee intake is associated with reduced malignant melanoma risk: a meta-analysis study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147056.

49. Wikoff D, Welsh BT, Henderson R, et al. Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. Food Chem Toxical. 2017;109(Pt 1):585-648.

50. Verna R. The history and science of chocolate. Malays J Pathol. 2013;35:111-121.

51. Katz DL, Doughty K, Ali A. Cocoa and chocolate in human health and disease. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011;15:2779-2811. 


52. Baba S, Natsume M, Yasuda A, et al. Plasma LDL and HDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL concentrations are altered in normo- and hypercholesterolemic humans after intake of different levels of cocoa powder. J Nutr. 2007;137:1436-1441.

53. Mellor DD, Sathyapalan T, Kilpatrick ES, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves HDL cholesterol in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabet Med. 2010;27:1318-1321.

54. Tokede OA, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Effects of cocoa products/dark chocolate on serum lipids: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65:879-886.

55. Jia L, Liu X, Bai YY, et al. Short-term effect of cocoa product consumption on lipid profile: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:218-225.

56. Rostami A, Khalili M, Haghighat N, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves blood pressure in patients with diabetes and hypertension. ARYA Atheroscler. 2015;11:21-29.

57. Buitrago-Lopez A, Sanderson J, Johnson L, et al. Chocolate consumption and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;26;343:d4488.

58. Wang X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, et al. Flavonoid intake and risk of CVD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;111:1-11.

59. Zomer E, Owen A, Magliano DJ, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dark chocolate consumption as prevention therapy in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: best case scenario analysis using a Markov model. BMJ. 2012;344:e3657.

60. Larsson SC, Virtamo J, Wolk A. Chocolate consumption and risk of stroke: a prospective cohort of men and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2012;79:1223-1229.

61. Khawaja O, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Chocolate and coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2011;13:447-452.

62. Jacques PF, Cassidy A, Rogers G, et al. Dietary flavonoid intakes and CVD incidence in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. Br J Nutr. 2015;114:1496-1503.

63. Taubert D, Roesen R, Lehmann C, et al. Effects of low habitual cocoa intake on blood pressure and bioactive nitric oxide: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298:49-60.

64. Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, et al. Effect of cocoa products on blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:97-103.

65. Ried K, Sullivan TR, Fakler P, et al. Effect of cocoa on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008893.

66. Saftlas AF, Triche EW, Beydoun H, et al. Does chocolate intake during pregnancy reduce the risks of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension? Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20:584-591.

67. Triche EW, Grosso LM, Belanger K, et al. Chocolate consumption in pregnancy and reduced likelihood of preeclampsia. Epidemiology. 2008;19:459-464.

68. Grassi D, Lippi C, Necozione S, et al. Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:611-614.

69. Matsumoto C, Petrone AB, Sesso HD, et al. Chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes mellitus in the Physicians’ Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:362-367.

70. Lippi D. Chocolate in history: food, medicine, medi-food. Nutrients. 2013;5:1573-1584.

71. Sathyapalan T, Beckett S, Rigby AS, et al. High cocoa polyphenol rich chocolate may reduce the burden of the symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome. Nutr J. 2010;9:55.

72. Martin FP, Antille N, Rezzi S, et al. Everyday eating experiences of chocolate and non-chocolate snacks impact postprandial anxiety, energy and emotional states. Nutrients. 2012;4:554-567.

73. Patel S, Mathan JJ, Vaghefi E, et al. The effect of flavonoids on visual function in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:1841-1850.

74. Moreira A, Diógenes MJ, de Mendonça A, et al. Chocolate consumption is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;53:85-93.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E1-E9
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (Dr. Malone); Torrance Memorial Physician Network, Calif (Dr. Tsai)
malm0001@hotmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

More than a third of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 Unfortunately, the public’s enthusiasm for herbal products is not always consistent with the scientific evidence supporting their use. In part one of this series, we discussed the studies that have been done on capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint. In this installment, we outline the research on 5 additional remedies: turmeric/curcumin, which may be of benefit in ulcerative colitis; chamomile, which appears to offer relief to patients with anxiety; rosemary, which may help treat alopecia; as well as coffee and cocoa, which may have some cardiovascular benefits (TABLE).

Turmeric/curcumin

Overview

Turmeric (Curcuma longa), a relative of ginger, has been used for 4000 years to treat a variety of conditions.2,3 Curcumin is the yellow pigment isolated from the rhizomes of Curcuma longa, commonly known as turmeric.3 Turmeric powder contains 5% curcumin, which is the main biologically active compound. Although it grows in many tropical locations, most turmeric is grown in India, where it is used as a main ingredient in curry. The roots and bulbs of turmeric that are used in medicine are generally boiled and dried, which results in a yellow powder.

Turmeric has been used in both Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine for its anti-inflammatory properties, in the treatment of digestive and liver problems, to fight infections, and to help heal skin diseases and wounds.3-7

Functional GI disorders. A recent review noted that curcumin has been shown in several preclinical studies and uncontrolled clinical trials to have effects on gut inflammation, gut permeability, and the brain-gut axis, especially in functional GI disorders.7 A double-blind, placebo-controlled study from 1989 found that turmeric reduced symptoms of bloating and gas in subjects suffering from undifferentiated dyspepsia.8

Ulcerative colitis (UC). A 2012 Cochrane review noted that curcumin appears to be a safe and effective therapy for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC when given as adjunctive therapy along with mesalamine or sulfasalazine.9 In a 2015 randomized controlled trial (RCT), the addition of curcumin to mesalamine therapy was superior to the combination of placebo and mesalamine in inducing clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with mild-to-moderate active UC, producing no apparent adverse effects.10

Osteoarthritis (OA). Because of turmeric’s ability to reduce inflammation, it may help relieve OA pain.3 Clinical evidence is scant for the anti-arthritic efficacy of turmeric dietary supplements, although animal studies indicate that turmeric prevents inflammation through regulation of NF-kappaB-regulated genes that regulate the immune and inflammatory response.6 Inflammatory cell influx, joint levels of prostaglandin E2, and periarticular osteoclast formation were also inhibited by turmeric extract treatment.6

A 2013 review of turmeric for OA concluded that observational studies and in vitro results are promising for the use of curcumin for OA, but well-designed clinical studies were lacking and are needed to support the efficacy of curcumin in OA patients.11 How­ever, in a 2014 randomized trial of 367 patients, turmeric appeared to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen for the treatment of pain and disability in adults with knee OA.12 The curcumin (turmeric) group also had fewer adverse effects.12

Cancer. There has been a great deal of research on turmeric’s anti-cancer properties, but clinical evidence is lacking. In vitro evidence, animal studies, and small clinical trials suggest that curcumin may help prevent or treat several types of cancers, but the overall evidence is poor. Nonetheless, curcumin and turmeric have been or are currently being evaluated for the treatment or prevention of prostate, liver, breast, skin, gynecologic, hematologic, pulmonary, thymic, bone, brain, and colon cancer.13-18

Oral submucous fibrosis. A small randomized trial found improvement in oral function with curcumin lozenges, when compared to placebo, indicating that turmeric may hold promise as a treatment of oral submucous fibrosis.19

Uveitis. A small pilot study of 32 patients suggested that oral curcumin may be as effective as corticosteroids for uveitis.20

Heart disease. Curcumin may have a cardiovascular protective role, as it has been shown to reduce atherosclerosis, but a reduction in myocardial infarction or stroke has not been documented.21

Alzheimer’s dementia. Animal studies have shown a reduction in amyloid plaque formation with curcumin.22

Adverse effects (and precautions)

Turmeric in food is considered safe. A variety of animal and human studies have also indicated that curcumin is safe and well tolerated, even at very high doses.13 However, taking large amounts of turmeric for long periods of time could cause stomach upset and gastric ulcers. In addition, patients with gallstones or bile obstruction should use it with caution due to increased bile production.7

Because turmeric may lower blood sugar levels, patients with diabetes should monitor for hypoglycemia when using turmeric in combination with diabetic medications. Similarly, those with bleeding disorders taking blood thinners should use turmeric and curcumin with caution, because it can inhibit platelet aggregation.23

Although it is safe to eat foods with turmeric during pregnancy, pregnant and breastfeeding women should not take turmeric supplements, as the safety of large doses in pregnancy is unknown.

The bottom line

Turmeric/curcumin has anti-inflammatory properties and may be useful as an adjunct for ulcerative colitis and to improve the symptoms of OA. It may also have anti-carcinogenic properties, although definitive data are lacking. Those with a history of gastrointestinal conditions such as gastric ulcer, patients taking blood thinners, and patients with diabetes who are prone to low blood sugar levels should use turmeric/curcumin with caution.

 

 

Chamomile

Overview

Chamomile, a member of the Asteraceae/Compositae family, is one of the oldest herbal medicines. It has been used for hay fever, inflammation, muscle spasms, menstrual disorders, insomnia, ulcers, wounds, gastrointestinal disorders, rheumatic pain, and hemorrhoids. Essential oils of chamomile are used extensively in cosmetics and aromatherapy. Many different preparations have been developed, the most popular being herbal tea.24

A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder.

Individuals with a hypersensitivity to plants of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family such as ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), marigold flower (Calendula officinalis), and chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum spp.) may show a similar reaction to chamomile.25

Anxiety. A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate GAD.26 Another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found oral chamomile extract was efficacious and well-tolerated in patients experiencing mild to moderate GAD and may provide an alternative therapeutic anxiolytic for patients with mild GAD.25 In addition to its anxiolytic activity, chamomile may also provide clinically meaningful antidepressant activity.26

Insomnia. Chamomile may have some impact on sleep diary measures (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, and number of awakenings) relative to placebo in adults with chronic primary insomnia, according to a small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial involving 34 patients.27 However, a systematic review found no statistically significant difference between any herbal medicine (including chamomile) and placebo, for clinical efficacy in patients with insomnia. A similar, or smaller, number of adverse events per person were reported with chamomile compared with placebo, suggesting safe use.28

Infantile colic. A small prospective double-blind study on the use of chamomile-containing tea on infantile colic showed statistically significant symptom improvement in tea-treated infants. The study did note, however, that prolonged ingestion of herbal teas may lead to decreased milk intake.29,30

Adverse effects

As noted earlier, a systematic review found that the number of adverse events per person reported with chamomile was comparable to the number associated with placebo, suggesting that it is safe.28

The bottom line

Chamomile appears to be safe with minimal adverse effects and may be effective for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and infantile colic.

Rosemary

Overview

Rosemary, officially known as Rosmarinus officinalis, is a medicinal evergreen plant native to the Mediterranean area that appears to increase microcapillary perfusion.31

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia, with minimal adverse effects.

Alopecia. A randomized double-blind controlled trial found that essential oils including rosemary oil (as well as thyme, lavender, and cedarwood) massaged into the scalp improved hair growth in almost half of patients with alopecia areata after 7 months.32 Another randomized trial comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2% for androgenetic alopecia showed a significant increase in hair count at the 6-month endpoint compared with the baseline, but no significant difference was found between the study groups regarding hair count either at Month 3 or Month 6 (P >.05). 31

Adverse effects

In the randomized trial described above comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2%, adverse effects appeared to be rare for topical rosemary oil. Scalp itching was more frequent in the minoxidil group.31

The bottom line

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia with minimal adverse effects.

 

 

Coffee/caffeine

Overview

Coffee is one of the most widely used botanicals with approximately 3.5 billion cups of coffee consumed per day worldwide. It is a popular beverage because of its unique aromatic taste and its use as a central nervous system stimulant. The coffee tree (genus coffea) is found throughout Latin America, Africa, and eastern Asia. Two of the most common commercially grown species are Coffea arabica (Arabicas) and Coffea canephora (Robusta). Processing and roasting methods may differ and produce variations in flavor and aroma. The degree of roasting also affects the caffeine content.

Coffee consumption leads to increased alertness and can boost mental performance. Based on the literature and US Food and Drug Administration recommendations, four 8-oz cups of coffee (about 400 mg of caffeine) daily is an acceptable average amount of caffeine. More than 500 mg/d is considered excessive use of coffee.33,34

Overall mortality. A 2008 study showed that regular coffee was not associated with increased or decreased mortality in both men and women.35 However, more recent studies show an inverse relationship between mortality and coffee consumption.

Specifically, a 2014 meta-analysis found an inverse relationship between coffee and mortality.36 A large prospective cohort study from 2015 that included 79,234 women and 76,704 men found that drinking coffee was inversely associated with overall mortality.37 In this cohort study, an inverse association were observed for deaths from heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and self-harm.37 While mechanisms were not analyzed, coffee may reduce mortality risk by affecting inflammation, lung function, insulin sensitivity, and depression.

Cardiovascular disease. Coffee consumption may modestly reduce the risk of stroke, according to a prospective cohort study of 83,076 women from the Nurses’ Health Study who were followed for 24 years.38 Reduced cardiovascular mortality was also found in a large prospective cohort study, as noted in the mortality discussion above.37 A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that coffee consumption is inversely associated with cardiovascular mortality. Drinking 3 or 4 cups a day appears to be the amount that may decrease one’s risk of death when compared to those who do not drink coffee at all.36

Liver disease. Friedrich et al performed a study involving 379 patients with end stage liver disease, and found that coffee consumption delayed the progression of disease in patients with both alcoholic liver disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis.39 Coffee consumption also increased long-term survival after liver transplantation.39 However, the study found that coffee did not have any effect on patients with chronic viral hepatitis.

In a 2016 meta-analysis, caffeinated coffee consumption reduced hepatic fibrosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, although caffeine consumption did not reduce the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.40 Another meta-analysis, including 16 studies, also found caffeine reduced the risk for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.41

Depression. Based on 2 different systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2016, coffee consumption appears to have a significant protective effect, decreasing the risk of developing depression.40,42

Alzheimer’s disease/dementia. Coffee, tea, and caffeine consumption show promise in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Individuals who consume one to 2 cups of coffee per day had a decreased incidence of mild cognitive impairment compared to non-drinkers.43 A 2015 Japanese study also found an inverse association between coffee consumption and dementia among women, nonsmokers, and those who do not drink alcohol.44 Most recently, a 2016 study, the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, looked at incident dementia rates in women >65 years of age with high vs low caffeine intake. Women with higher caffeine intake were less likely to develop dementia or any cognitive impairment compared with those consuming <64 mg/day.45

Type 2 diabetes. A 2009 prospective cohort study, which included 40,011 participants followed for more than 10 years, found that drinking at least 3 cups of coffee or tea was associated with a lowered risk of type 2 diabetes.46 A 2009 systematic review of 20 cohort studies showed that high intakes of coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea are associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.47

A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants found an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.

Melanoma. A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants demon­strated an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.47 The risk of melanoma decreased by 3% and 4% for one cup/day of total coffee and caffeinated coffee consumption, respectively. Furthermore, a 2016 meta-analysis found that caffeinated coffee may have greater chemopreventive effects against melanoma than decaffeinated coffee.48

Adverse effects

Despite the many potential benefits of coffee, caffeine is a potent drug that should be used with caution.49 People with underlying heart problems should avoid caffeine due to concern that it may cause palpitations from tachycardia. It may worsen anxiety problems or depression. Coffee may increase the production of stomach acids, which can worsen acid reflux or stomach ulcers.

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced CV events, and a reduction in liver disease progression.

Caffeine is a potent diuretic and may decrease absorption of calcium and cause OA. Caffeine may cause dependence and withdrawal symptoms. Some of the symptoms of withdrawal include drowsiness, headaches, irritability, nausea, and vomiting. It may disrupt sleeping patterns by causing jitters and sleeplessness.49 Additionally, large amounts of caffeine may cause overdose and death.

The bottom line

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced cardiovascular events, and a reduction in liver disease progression. Coffee may also have some utility for improving cognitive function and reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Caffeinated coffee should be limited to no more than 32 oz per day, due to the risk of insomnia, palpitations, anxiety, and gastritis.

 

 

Chocolate/cocoa

Overview

Few natural products have been claimed to successfully treat as many disorders as chocolate. The modern concept of chocolate as food has overshadowed its traditional medicinal use, although recent trials have looked at evidence for some of its traditional uses. Chocolate is processed from the pod of the cacao plant. The earliest evidence for its medical use is in Mayan civilizations, and for most of its approximately 4000-year history, chocolate was consumed as a bitter drink referred to as the “drink of the Gods.” The traditional drink was mixed with water, vanilla, honey, chili peppers, and other spices. Important components in chocolate include flavonoids (antioxidants), cocoa butter, caffeine, theobromine, and phenylethylamine.  

Chocolate has stimulating, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and cardioprotective effects, and improves the bioavailability of nitric oxide, which can improve blood pressure and platelet function.50 Epicatechin (an antioxidant) in cocoa is primarily responsible for its favorable impact on vascular endothelium via its effect on both acute and chronic upregulation of nitric oxide production. Other cardiovascular effects are mediated by the anti-inflammatory effects of cocoa polyphenols, and modulated through the activity of NF-kappaB.51

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.

Dark chocolate appears to have the greatest benefit, as milk binds to antioxidants in chocolate, making them unavailable. Therefore, milk chocolate is not a good antioxidant source. There is no specific amount of chocolate that is known to be ideal, but an average of one to 2 ounces per day is often used in studies.

Cardiovascular effects. Chocolate does contain saturated fat, but a comparative, double-blind study found that short-term use of cocoa powder lowered plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, oxidized LDL, and apo B concentrations, and the plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentration increased, relative to baseline in the low-, middle-, and high-cocoa groups.52 A small randomized crossover trial without clinical outcomes indicated that chocolate may increase HDL cholesterol without increasing weight.53

A meta-analysis of short-term (2-12 weeks) treatment with dark chocolate/cocoa products showed reductions in LDL and total cholesterol, but no changes in HDL or triglycerides.54 Another meta-analysis of RCTs, however, showed no short-term effect of cocoa/chocolate on lipid concentrations.55 A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study of 62 patients with diabetes and hypertension showed that high polyphenol chocolate improved triglyceride levels.56

Chocolate intake was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline, with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar per week.

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.57-59 A best case scenario analysis using a Markov model to predict the long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of daily dark chocolate consumption in a population with metabolic syndrome at high risk of cardiovascular disease concluded that daily consumption of dark chocolate can reduce cardiovascular events by 85 per 10,000 population treated over 10 years. The study concluded that $42 could be cost effectively spent per person per year on prevention strategies using dark chocolate.59

In addition, a meta-analysis of 7 observational studies showed that high levels of chocolate consumption (any type) were associated with a 29% reduction in stroke compared with the lowest levels of chocolate intake.57 Results of a similar meta-analysis from Neurology in 2012 also suggested that moderate chocolate consumption (any type) may lower the risk of stroke.60

That said, 2 systematic reviews specifically relating to the risk of coronary heart disease and chocolate intake were inconclusive.61-62

Blood pressure (BP). An RCT published in JAMA indicates that inclusion of small amounts of polyphenol-rich dark chocolate as part of a usual diet efficiently reduced BP and improved the formation of vasodilative nitric oxide.63 A meta-analysis of 10 RCTs also showed mean BP change in the active cocoa treatment arms across all trials was -4.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), -5.9 to -3.2; P<.001) for systolic BP and -2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.9 to -1.2; P<.001) for diastolic BP.64

A Cochrane Review meta-analysis of 20 studies revealed a statistically significant BP-reducing effect of flavanol-rich cocoa products compared with control in short-term trials of 2 to 18 weeks' duration.65 Because studies have shown improvement in BP with chocolate intake, investigations into a role of chocolate in the prevention of preeclampsia have been undertaken. In some studies, chocolate intake was associated with reduced odds of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.66,67

Diabetes. Chocolate may exert significant vascular protection because of its antioxidant properties and possible increase of nitric oxide bioavailability, which can influence glucose uptake. A small trial comparing the effects of either dark or white chocolate bars (which do not contain the polyphenols) showed improved BP and glucose and insulin responses to an oral glucose tolerance test in healthy subjects on dark chocolate, but not white chocolate.68 A comparison of chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes in the Physicians’ Health Study showed an inverse relationship between chocolate intake with incident disease, but this association appeared only to apply in younger and normal-body weight men after controlling for comprehensive lifestyles, including total energy consumption.69

Fatigue. The effect of chocolate on a person’s energy level has been noted for centuries.70 A small randomized trial showed improved energy levels in those treated with higher chocolate intakes. In a double-blind, randomized, clinical pilot crossover study, high cocoa liquor/polyphenol rich chocolate, reduced fatigue in subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome.71

Anxiety. A small randomized trial showed chocolate decreased anxiety in high-anxiety trait subjects and improved the anxiety level and the energy levels of low-anxiety trait participants.72

Eye effects. The literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the effect of flavonoids on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. However, a meta-analysis showed that flavonoids have a promising role in improving visual function in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and appear to play a part in both improving and slowing the progression of visual field loss.73

Cognitive decline. Chocolate intake (any type) was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92) with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar or one tablespoon of cocoa powder per week. This protective effect was observed only among subjects with an average daily consumption of caffeine <75  mg (69% of the participants; RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82).74

The bottom line

Chocolate with high cocoa content (dark chocolate) appears to be safe and beneficial as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle that includes exercise and stress reduction to decrease cardiovascular risk and may improve energy levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

More than a third of American adults use complementary and alternative medicine.1 Unfortunately, the public’s enthusiasm for herbal products is not always consistent with the scientific evidence supporting their use. In part one of this series, we discussed the studies that have been done on capsaicin, butterbur, green tea, and peppermint. In this installment, we outline the research on 5 additional remedies: turmeric/curcumin, which may be of benefit in ulcerative colitis; chamomile, which appears to offer relief to patients with anxiety; rosemary, which may help treat alopecia; as well as coffee and cocoa, which may have some cardiovascular benefits (TABLE).

Turmeric/curcumin

Overview

Turmeric (Curcuma longa), a relative of ginger, has been used for 4000 years to treat a variety of conditions.2,3 Curcumin is the yellow pigment isolated from the rhizomes of Curcuma longa, commonly known as turmeric.3 Turmeric powder contains 5% curcumin, which is the main biologically active compound. Although it grows in many tropical locations, most turmeric is grown in India, where it is used as a main ingredient in curry. The roots and bulbs of turmeric that are used in medicine are generally boiled and dried, which results in a yellow powder.

Turmeric has been used in both Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine for its anti-inflammatory properties, in the treatment of digestive and liver problems, to fight infections, and to help heal skin diseases and wounds.3-7

Functional GI disorders. A recent review noted that curcumin has been shown in several preclinical studies and uncontrolled clinical trials to have effects on gut inflammation, gut permeability, and the brain-gut axis, especially in functional GI disorders.7 A double-blind, placebo-controlled study from 1989 found that turmeric reduced symptoms of bloating and gas in subjects suffering from undifferentiated dyspepsia.8

Ulcerative colitis (UC). A 2012 Cochrane review noted that curcumin appears to be a safe and effective therapy for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC when given as adjunctive therapy along with mesalamine or sulfasalazine.9 In a 2015 randomized controlled trial (RCT), the addition of curcumin to mesalamine therapy was superior to the combination of placebo and mesalamine in inducing clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with mild-to-moderate active UC, producing no apparent adverse effects.10

Osteoarthritis (OA). Because of turmeric’s ability to reduce inflammation, it may help relieve OA pain.3 Clinical evidence is scant for the anti-arthritic efficacy of turmeric dietary supplements, although animal studies indicate that turmeric prevents inflammation through regulation of NF-kappaB-regulated genes that regulate the immune and inflammatory response.6 Inflammatory cell influx, joint levels of prostaglandin E2, and periarticular osteoclast formation were also inhibited by turmeric extract treatment.6

A 2013 review of turmeric for OA concluded that observational studies and in vitro results are promising for the use of curcumin for OA, but well-designed clinical studies were lacking and are needed to support the efficacy of curcumin in OA patients.11 How­ever, in a 2014 randomized trial of 367 patients, turmeric appeared to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen for the treatment of pain and disability in adults with knee OA.12 The curcumin (turmeric) group also had fewer adverse effects.12

Cancer. There has been a great deal of research on turmeric’s anti-cancer properties, but clinical evidence is lacking. In vitro evidence, animal studies, and small clinical trials suggest that curcumin may help prevent or treat several types of cancers, but the overall evidence is poor. Nonetheless, curcumin and turmeric have been or are currently being evaluated for the treatment or prevention of prostate, liver, breast, skin, gynecologic, hematologic, pulmonary, thymic, bone, brain, and colon cancer.13-18

Oral submucous fibrosis. A small randomized trial found improvement in oral function with curcumin lozenges, when compared to placebo, indicating that turmeric may hold promise as a treatment of oral submucous fibrosis.19

Uveitis. A small pilot study of 32 patients suggested that oral curcumin may be as effective as corticosteroids for uveitis.20

Heart disease. Curcumin may have a cardiovascular protective role, as it has been shown to reduce atherosclerosis, but a reduction in myocardial infarction or stroke has not been documented.21

Alzheimer’s dementia. Animal studies have shown a reduction in amyloid plaque formation with curcumin.22

Adverse effects (and precautions)

Turmeric in food is considered safe. A variety of animal and human studies have also indicated that curcumin is safe and well tolerated, even at very high doses.13 However, taking large amounts of turmeric for long periods of time could cause stomach upset and gastric ulcers. In addition, patients with gallstones or bile obstruction should use it with caution due to increased bile production.7

Because turmeric may lower blood sugar levels, patients with diabetes should monitor for hypoglycemia when using turmeric in combination with diabetic medications. Similarly, those with bleeding disorders taking blood thinners should use turmeric and curcumin with caution, because it can inhibit platelet aggregation.23

Although it is safe to eat foods with turmeric during pregnancy, pregnant and breastfeeding women should not take turmeric supplements, as the safety of large doses in pregnancy is unknown.

The bottom line

Turmeric/curcumin has anti-inflammatory properties and may be useful as an adjunct for ulcerative colitis and to improve the symptoms of OA. It may also have anti-carcinogenic properties, although definitive data are lacking. Those with a history of gastrointestinal conditions such as gastric ulcer, patients taking blood thinners, and patients with diabetes who are prone to low blood sugar levels should use turmeric/curcumin with caution.

 

 

Chamomile

Overview

Chamomile, a member of the Asteraceae/Compositae family, is one of the oldest herbal medicines. It has been used for hay fever, inflammation, muscle spasms, menstrual disorders, insomnia, ulcers, wounds, gastrointestinal disorders, rheumatic pain, and hemorrhoids. Essential oils of chamomile are used extensively in cosmetics and aromatherapy. Many different preparations have been developed, the most popular being herbal tea.24

A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder.

Individuals with a hypersensitivity to plants of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family such as ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), marigold flower (Calendula officinalis), and chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum spp.) may show a similar reaction to chamomile.25

Anxiety. A controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) suggested that it may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate GAD.26 Another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found oral chamomile extract was efficacious and well-tolerated in patients experiencing mild to moderate GAD and may provide an alternative therapeutic anxiolytic for patients with mild GAD.25 In addition to its anxiolytic activity, chamomile may also provide clinically meaningful antidepressant activity.26

Insomnia. Chamomile may have some impact on sleep diary measures (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, and number of awakenings) relative to placebo in adults with chronic primary insomnia, according to a small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial involving 34 patients.27 However, a systematic review found no statistically significant difference between any herbal medicine (including chamomile) and placebo, for clinical efficacy in patients with insomnia. A similar, or smaller, number of adverse events per person were reported with chamomile compared with placebo, suggesting safe use.28

Infantile colic. A small prospective double-blind study on the use of chamomile-containing tea on infantile colic showed statistically significant symptom improvement in tea-treated infants. The study did note, however, that prolonged ingestion of herbal teas may lead to decreased milk intake.29,30

Adverse effects

As noted earlier, a systematic review found that the number of adverse events per person reported with chamomile was comparable to the number associated with placebo, suggesting that it is safe.28

The bottom line

Chamomile appears to be safe with minimal adverse effects and may be effective for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and infantile colic.

Rosemary

Overview

Rosemary, officially known as Rosmarinus officinalis, is a medicinal evergreen plant native to the Mediterranean area that appears to increase microcapillary perfusion.31

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia, with minimal adverse effects.

Alopecia. A randomized double-blind controlled trial found that essential oils including rosemary oil (as well as thyme, lavender, and cedarwood) massaged into the scalp improved hair growth in almost half of patients with alopecia areata after 7 months.32 Another randomized trial comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2% for androgenetic alopecia showed a significant increase in hair count at the 6-month endpoint compared with the baseline, but no significant difference was found between the study groups regarding hair count either at Month 3 or Month 6 (P >.05). 31

Adverse effects

In the randomized trial described above comparing rosemary oil to minoxidil 2%, adverse effects appeared to be rare for topical rosemary oil. Scalp itching was more frequent in the minoxidil group.31

The bottom line

Topical rosemary oil may be useful in the treatment of alopecia with minimal adverse effects.

 

 

Coffee/caffeine

Overview

Coffee is one of the most widely used botanicals with approximately 3.5 billion cups of coffee consumed per day worldwide. It is a popular beverage because of its unique aromatic taste and its use as a central nervous system stimulant. The coffee tree (genus coffea) is found throughout Latin America, Africa, and eastern Asia. Two of the most common commercially grown species are Coffea arabica (Arabicas) and Coffea canephora (Robusta). Processing and roasting methods may differ and produce variations in flavor and aroma. The degree of roasting also affects the caffeine content.

Coffee consumption leads to increased alertness and can boost mental performance. Based on the literature and US Food and Drug Administration recommendations, four 8-oz cups of coffee (about 400 mg of caffeine) daily is an acceptable average amount of caffeine. More than 500 mg/d is considered excessive use of coffee.33,34

Overall mortality. A 2008 study showed that regular coffee was not associated with increased or decreased mortality in both men and women.35 However, more recent studies show an inverse relationship between mortality and coffee consumption.

Specifically, a 2014 meta-analysis found an inverse relationship between coffee and mortality.36 A large prospective cohort study from 2015 that included 79,234 women and 76,704 men found that drinking coffee was inversely associated with overall mortality.37 In this cohort study, an inverse association were observed for deaths from heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and self-harm.37 While mechanisms were not analyzed, coffee may reduce mortality risk by affecting inflammation, lung function, insulin sensitivity, and depression.

Cardiovascular disease. Coffee consumption may modestly reduce the risk of stroke, according to a prospective cohort study of 83,076 women from the Nurses’ Health Study who were followed for 24 years.38 Reduced cardiovascular mortality was also found in a large prospective cohort study, as noted in the mortality discussion above.37 A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that coffee consumption is inversely associated with cardiovascular mortality. Drinking 3 or 4 cups a day appears to be the amount that may decrease one’s risk of death when compared to those who do not drink coffee at all.36

Liver disease. Friedrich et al performed a study involving 379 patients with end stage liver disease, and found that coffee consumption delayed the progression of disease in patients with both alcoholic liver disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis.39 Coffee consumption also increased long-term survival after liver transplantation.39 However, the study found that coffee did not have any effect on patients with chronic viral hepatitis.

In a 2016 meta-analysis, caffeinated coffee consumption reduced hepatic fibrosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, although caffeine consumption did not reduce the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.40 Another meta-analysis, including 16 studies, also found caffeine reduced the risk for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.41

Depression. Based on 2 different systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2016, coffee consumption appears to have a significant protective effect, decreasing the risk of developing depression.40,42

Alzheimer’s disease/dementia. Coffee, tea, and caffeine consumption show promise in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Individuals who consume one to 2 cups of coffee per day had a decreased incidence of mild cognitive impairment compared to non-drinkers.43 A 2015 Japanese study also found an inverse association between coffee consumption and dementia among women, nonsmokers, and those who do not drink alcohol.44 Most recently, a 2016 study, the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, looked at incident dementia rates in women >65 years of age with high vs low caffeine intake. Women with higher caffeine intake were less likely to develop dementia or any cognitive impairment compared with those consuming <64 mg/day.45

Type 2 diabetes. A 2009 prospective cohort study, which included 40,011 participants followed for more than 10 years, found that drinking at least 3 cups of coffee or tea was associated with a lowered risk of type 2 diabetes.46 A 2009 systematic review of 20 cohort studies showed that high intakes of coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea are associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.47

A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants found an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.

Melanoma. A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 832,956 participants demon­strated an inverse relationship between cutaneous melanoma and coffee consumption.47 The risk of melanoma decreased by 3% and 4% for one cup/day of total coffee and caffeinated coffee consumption, respectively. Furthermore, a 2016 meta-analysis found that caffeinated coffee may have greater chemopreventive effects against melanoma than decaffeinated coffee.48

Adverse effects

Despite the many potential benefits of coffee, caffeine is a potent drug that should be used with caution.49 People with underlying heart problems should avoid caffeine due to concern that it may cause palpitations from tachycardia. It may worsen anxiety problems or depression. Coffee may increase the production of stomach acids, which can worsen acid reflux or stomach ulcers.

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced CV events, and a reduction in liver disease progression.

Caffeine is a potent diuretic and may decrease absorption of calcium and cause OA. Caffeine may cause dependence and withdrawal symptoms. Some of the symptoms of withdrawal include drowsiness, headaches, irritability, nausea, and vomiting. It may disrupt sleeping patterns by causing jitters and sleeplessness.49 Additionally, large amounts of caffeine may cause overdose and death.

The bottom line

Regular coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced cardiovascular events, and a reduction in liver disease progression. Coffee may also have some utility for improving cognitive function and reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Caffeinated coffee should be limited to no more than 32 oz per day, due to the risk of insomnia, palpitations, anxiety, and gastritis.

 

 

Chocolate/cocoa

Overview

Few natural products have been claimed to successfully treat as many disorders as chocolate. The modern concept of chocolate as food has overshadowed its traditional medicinal use, although recent trials have looked at evidence for some of its traditional uses. Chocolate is processed from the pod of the cacao plant. The earliest evidence for its medical use is in Mayan civilizations, and for most of its approximately 4000-year history, chocolate was consumed as a bitter drink referred to as the “drink of the Gods.” The traditional drink was mixed with water, vanilla, honey, chili peppers, and other spices. Important components in chocolate include flavonoids (antioxidants), cocoa butter, caffeine, theobromine, and phenylethylamine.  

Chocolate has stimulating, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and cardioprotective effects, and improves the bioavailability of nitric oxide, which can improve blood pressure and platelet function.50 Epicatechin (an antioxidant) in cocoa is primarily responsible for its favorable impact on vascular endothelium via its effect on both acute and chronic upregulation of nitric oxide production. Other cardiovascular effects are mediated by the anti-inflammatory effects of cocoa polyphenols, and modulated through the activity of NF-kappaB.51

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.

Dark chocolate appears to have the greatest benefit, as milk binds to antioxidants in chocolate, making them unavailable. Therefore, milk chocolate is not a good antioxidant source. There is no specific amount of chocolate that is known to be ideal, but an average of one to 2 ounces per day is often used in studies.

Cardiovascular effects. Chocolate does contain saturated fat, but a comparative, double-blind study found that short-term use of cocoa powder lowered plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, oxidized LDL, and apo B concentrations, and the plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentration increased, relative to baseline in the low-, middle-, and high-cocoa groups.52 A small randomized crossover trial without clinical outcomes indicated that chocolate may increase HDL cholesterol without increasing weight.53

A meta-analysis of short-term (2-12 weeks) treatment with dark chocolate/cocoa products showed reductions in LDL and total cholesterol, but no changes in HDL or triglycerides.54 Another meta-analysis of RCTs, however, showed no short-term effect of cocoa/chocolate on lipid concentrations.55 A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study of 62 patients with diabetes and hypertension showed that high polyphenol chocolate improved triglyceride levels.56

Chocolate intake was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline, with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar per week.

Multiple studies have shown that chocolate is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk.57-59 A best case scenario analysis using a Markov model to predict the long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of daily dark chocolate consumption in a population with metabolic syndrome at high risk of cardiovascular disease concluded that daily consumption of dark chocolate can reduce cardiovascular events by 85 per 10,000 population treated over 10 years. The study concluded that $42 could be cost effectively spent per person per year on prevention strategies using dark chocolate.59

In addition, a meta-analysis of 7 observational studies showed that high levels of chocolate consumption (any type) were associated with a 29% reduction in stroke compared with the lowest levels of chocolate intake.57 Results of a similar meta-analysis from Neurology in 2012 also suggested that moderate chocolate consumption (any type) may lower the risk of stroke.60

That said, 2 systematic reviews specifically relating to the risk of coronary heart disease and chocolate intake were inconclusive.61-62

Blood pressure (BP). An RCT published in JAMA indicates that inclusion of small amounts of polyphenol-rich dark chocolate as part of a usual diet efficiently reduced BP and improved the formation of vasodilative nitric oxide.63 A meta-analysis of 10 RCTs also showed mean BP change in the active cocoa treatment arms across all trials was -4.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), -5.9 to -3.2; P<.001) for systolic BP and -2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.9 to -1.2; P<.001) for diastolic BP.64

A Cochrane Review meta-analysis of 20 studies revealed a statistically significant BP-reducing effect of flavanol-rich cocoa products compared with control in short-term trials of 2 to 18 weeks' duration.65 Because studies have shown improvement in BP with chocolate intake, investigations into a role of chocolate in the prevention of preeclampsia have been undertaken. In some studies, chocolate intake was associated with reduced odds of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.66,67

Diabetes. Chocolate may exert significant vascular protection because of its antioxidant properties and possible increase of nitric oxide bioavailability, which can influence glucose uptake. A small trial comparing the effects of either dark or white chocolate bars (which do not contain the polyphenols) showed improved BP and glucose and insulin responses to an oral glucose tolerance test in healthy subjects on dark chocolate, but not white chocolate.68 A comparison of chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes in the Physicians’ Health Study showed an inverse relationship between chocolate intake with incident disease, but this association appeared only to apply in younger and normal-body weight men after controlling for comprehensive lifestyles, including total energy consumption.69

Fatigue. The effect of chocolate on a person’s energy level has been noted for centuries.70 A small randomized trial showed improved energy levels in those treated with higher chocolate intakes. In a double-blind, randomized, clinical pilot crossover study, high cocoa liquor/polyphenol rich chocolate, reduced fatigue in subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome.71

Anxiety. A small randomized trial showed chocolate decreased anxiety in high-anxiety trait subjects and improved the anxiety level and the energy levels of low-anxiety trait participants.72

Eye effects. The literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the effect of flavonoids on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. However, a meta-analysis showed that flavonoids have a promising role in improving visual function in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and appear to play a part in both improving and slowing the progression of visual field loss.73

Cognitive decline. Chocolate intake (any type) was associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92) with the greatest benefit noted in those who averaged more than one chocolate bar or one tablespoon of cocoa powder per week. This protective effect was observed only among subjects with an average daily consumption of caffeine <75  mg (69% of the participants; RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82).74

The bottom line

Chocolate with high cocoa content (dark chocolate) appears to be safe and beneficial as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle that includes exercise and stress reduction to decrease cardiovascular risk and may improve energy levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Malone, MD, Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; malm0001@hotmail.com.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed Nov 28, 2017.

2. Aggarwal BB. Curcumin-free turmeric exhibits anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities: identification of novel components of turmeric. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57:1529-1542.

3. Henrotin Y, Clutterbuck AL, Allaway D, et al. Biological actions of curcumin on articular chondrocytes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18:141-149.

4. Asher GN, Spelman K. Clinical utility of curcumin extract. Altern Ther Health Med. 2013;19:20-22.

5. Phan TT, See P, Lee ST, et al. Protective effects of curcumin against oxidative damage on skin cells in vitro: its implication for wound healing. J Trauma. 2001;51:927-931.

6. Funk JL, Frye JB, Oyarzo JN, et al. Efficacy and mechanism of action of turmeric supplements in the treatment of experimental arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3452-3464.

7. Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Chili peppers, curcumins, and prebiotics in gastrointestinal health and disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18:19.

8. Thamlikitkul V, Bunyapraphatsara N, Dechatiwongse T, et al. Randomized double blind study of Curcuma domestica Val. for dyspepsia. J Med Assoc Thai. 1989;72:613-620.

9. Kumar S, Ahuja V, Sankar MJ, et al. Curcumin for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD008424.

10. Lang A, Salomon N, Wu JC, et al. Curcumin in combination with mesalamine induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1444-1449.e1.

11. Henrotin Y, Priem F, Mobasheri A. Curcumin: a new paradigm and therapeutic opportunity for the treatment of osteoarthritis: curcumin for osteoarthritis management. Springerplus. 2013;2:56.

12. Kuptniratsaikul V, Dajpratham P, Taechaarpornkul W, et al. Efficacy and safety of Curcuma domestica extracts compared with ibuprofen in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:451-458.

13. Shehzad A, Lee J, Lee YS. Curcumin in various cancers. Biofactors. 2013;39:56-68.

14. Sordillo LA, Sordillo PP, Helson L. Curcumin for the treatment of glioblastoma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:6373-6378.

15. Darvesh AS, Aggarwal BB, Bishayee A. Curcumin and liver cancer: a review. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2012;13:218-228.

16. Nagaraju GP, Aliya S, Zafar SF, et al. The impact of curcumin on breast cancer. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012;4:996-1007.

17. Johnson JJ, Mukhtar H. Curcumin for chemoprevention of colon cancer. Cancer Lett. 2007;255:170-181.

18. Dorai T, Cao YC, Dorai B, et al. Therapeutic potential of curcumin in human prostate cancer. III. Curcumin inhibits proliferation, induces apoptosis, and inhibits angiogenesis of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in vivo. Prostate. 2001;47:293-303.

19. Hazarey VK, Sakrikar AR, Ganvir SM. Efficacy of curcumin in the treatment for oral submucous fibrosis - a randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2015;19:145-152.

20. Lal B, Kapoor AK, Asthana OP, et al. Efficacy of curcumin in the management of chronic anterior uveitis. Phytother Res. 1999;13:318-322.

21. Kapakos G, Youreva V, Srivastava AK. Cardiovascular protection by curcumin: molecular aspects. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2012;49:306-315.

22. Yang F, Lim GP, Begum AN, et al. Curcumin inhibits formation of amyloid beta oligomers and fibrils, binds plaques, and reduces amyloid in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:5892-5901.

23. Heck AM, DeWitt BA, Lukes AL. Potential interactions between alternative therapies and warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57:1221-1227.

24. Srivastava JK, Shankar E, Gupta S. Chamomile: a herbal medicine of the past with bright future. Mol Med Rep. 2010;3:895-901.

25. Ross SM. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): efficacy of standardized matricaria recutita (german chamomile) extract in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Holistic Nursing Practice. 2013;27:366- 368.

26. Amsterdam JD, Li Y, Soeller I, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:378-382.

27. Zick SM, Wright BD, Sen A, et al. Preliminary examination of the efficacy and safety of a standardized chamomile extract for chronic primary insomnia: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011;11:78.

28. Leach MJ, Page AT. Herbal medicine for insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2015;24:1-12.

29. Weizman Z, Alkrinawi S, Goldfarb D, et al. Efficacy of herbal tea preparation in infantile colic. J Pediatr. 1993;122:650.

30. Crotteau CA, Wright ST, Eglash A. Clinical inquiries. What is the best treatment for infants with colic? J Fam Pract. 2006;55:634-636.

31. Panahi Y, Taghizadeh M, Marzony ET, et al. Rosemary oil vs minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a randomized comparative trial. Skinmed. 2015;13:15-21.

32. Hay IC, Jamieson M, Ormerod AD. Randomized trial of aromatherapy. Successful treatment for alopecia areata. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1349-1352.

33. Caffeine and kids: FDA takes a closer look. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm350570.htm. Accessed: November 1, 2017.

34. Torpy JM, Livingston EH. Energy Drinks. JAMA. 2013;309:297.

35. Lopez-Garcia E, van Dam RM, Li TY, et al. The relationship of coffee consumption with mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:904-914.

36. Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, et al. Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180:763-775.

37. Loftfield E, Freedman ND, Graubard BI, et al. Association of coffee consumption with overall and cause-specific mortality in a large US prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182:1010-1022.

38. Lopez-Garcia E, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Rexrode KM, et al. Coffee consumption and risk of stroke in women. Circulation. 2009;119:1116-1123.

39. Friedrich K, Smit M, Wannhoff A, et al. Coffee consumption protects against progression in liver cirrhosis and increases long-term survival after liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1470-1475.

40. Wang L, Shen X, Wu Y, et al. Coffee and caffeine consumption and depression: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50:228-242.

41. Liu F, Wang X, Wu G, et al. Coffee consumption decreases risks for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142457.

42. Grosso G, Micek A, Castellano S, et al. Coffee, tea, caffeine and risk of depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016;60:223-234.

43. Solfrizzi V, Panza F, Imbimbo BP, et al. Italian longitudinal study on aging working group. Coffee consumption habits and the risk of mild cognitive impairment: The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47:889-899.

44. Sugiyama K, Tomata Y, Kaiho Y, et al. Association between coffee consumption and incident risk of disabling dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;50:491-500.

45. Driscoll I, Shumaker SA, Snively BM, et al. Relationships between caffeine intake and risk for probable dementia or global cognitive impairment: The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71:1596-1602.

46. van Dieren S, Uiterwaal CS, van der Schouw YT, et al. Coffee and tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2009;52:2561-2569.

47. Wang J, Li X, Zhang D. Coffee consumption and the risk of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55:1317-1329.

48. Liu J, Shen B, Shi M, et al. Higher caffeinated coffee intake is associated with reduced malignant melanoma risk: a meta-analysis study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147056.

49. Wikoff D, Welsh BT, Henderson R, et al. Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. Food Chem Toxical. 2017;109(Pt 1):585-648.

50. Verna R. The history and science of chocolate. Malays J Pathol. 2013;35:111-121.

51. Katz DL, Doughty K, Ali A. Cocoa and chocolate in human health and disease. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011;15:2779-2811. 


52. Baba S, Natsume M, Yasuda A, et al. Plasma LDL and HDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL concentrations are altered in normo- and hypercholesterolemic humans after intake of different levels of cocoa powder. J Nutr. 2007;137:1436-1441.

53. Mellor DD, Sathyapalan T, Kilpatrick ES, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves HDL cholesterol in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabet Med. 2010;27:1318-1321.

54. Tokede OA, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Effects of cocoa products/dark chocolate on serum lipids: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65:879-886.

55. Jia L, Liu X, Bai YY, et al. Short-term effect of cocoa product consumption on lipid profile: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:218-225.

56. Rostami A, Khalili M, Haghighat N, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves blood pressure in patients with diabetes and hypertension. ARYA Atheroscler. 2015;11:21-29.

57. Buitrago-Lopez A, Sanderson J, Johnson L, et al. Chocolate consumption and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;26;343:d4488.

58. Wang X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, et al. Flavonoid intake and risk of CVD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;111:1-11.

59. Zomer E, Owen A, Magliano DJ, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dark chocolate consumption as prevention therapy in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: best case scenario analysis using a Markov model. BMJ. 2012;344:e3657.

60. Larsson SC, Virtamo J, Wolk A. Chocolate consumption and risk of stroke: a prospective cohort of men and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2012;79:1223-1229.

61. Khawaja O, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Chocolate and coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2011;13:447-452.

62. Jacques PF, Cassidy A, Rogers G, et al. Dietary flavonoid intakes and CVD incidence in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. Br J Nutr. 2015;114:1496-1503.

63. Taubert D, Roesen R, Lehmann C, et al. Effects of low habitual cocoa intake on blood pressure and bioactive nitric oxide: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298:49-60.

64. Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, et al. Effect of cocoa products on blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:97-103.

65. Ried K, Sullivan TR, Fakler P, et al. Effect of cocoa on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008893.

66. Saftlas AF, Triche EW, Beydoun H, et al. Does chocolate intake during pregnancy reduce the risks of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension? Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20:584-591.

67. Triche EW, Grosso LM, Belanger K, et al. Chocolate consumption in pregnancy and reduced likelihood of preeclampsia. Epidemiology. 2008;19:459-464.

68. Grassi D, Lippi C, Necozione S, et al. Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:611-614.

69. Matsumoto C, Petrone AB, Sesso HD, et al. Chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes mellitus in the Physicians’ Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:362-367.

70. Lippi D. Chocolate in history: food, medicine, medi-food. Nutrients. 2013;5:1573-1584.

71. Sathyapalan T, Beckett S, Rigby AS, et al. High cocoa polyphenol rich chocolate may reduce the burden of the symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome. Nutr J. 2010;9:55.

72. Martin FP, Antille N, Rezzi S, et al. Everyday eating experiences of chocolate and non-chocolate snacks impact postprandial anxiety, energy and emotional states. Nutrients. 2012;4:554-567.

73. Patel S, Mathan JJ, Vaghefi E, et al. The effect of flavonoids on visual function in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:1841-1850.

74. Moreira A, Diógenes MJ, de Mendonça A, et al. Chocolate consumption is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;53:85-93.

References

1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States. Available at: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm. Accessed Nov 28, 2017.

2. Aggarwal BB. Curcumin-free turmeric exhibits anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities: identification of novel components of turmeric. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57:1529-1542.

3. Henrotin Y, Clutterbuck AL, Allaway D, et al. Biological actions of curcumin on articular chondrocytes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18:141-149.

4. Asher GN, Spelman K. Clinical utility of curcumin extract. Altern Ther Health Med. 2013;19:20-22.

5. Phan TT, See P, Lee ST, et al. Protective effects of curcumin against oxidative damage on skin cells in vitro: its implication for wound healing. J Trauma. 2001;51:927-931.

6. Funk JL, Frye JB, Oyarzo JN, et al. Efficacy and mechanism of action of turmeric supplements in the treatment of experimental arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3452-3464.

7. Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Chili peppers, curcumins, and prebiotics in gastrointestinal health and disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18:19.

8. Thamlikitkul V, Bunyapraphatsara N, Dechatiwongse T, et al. Randomized double blind study of Curcuma domestica Val. for dyspepsia. J Med Assoc Thai. 1989;72:613-620.

9. Kumar S, Ahuja V, Sankar MJ, et al. Curcumin for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD008424.

10. Lang A, Salomon N, Wu JC, et al. Curcumin in combination with mesalamine induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1444-1449.e1.

11. Henrotin Y, Priem F, Mobasheri A. Curcumin: a new paradigm and therapeutic opportunity for the treatment of osteoarthritis: curcumin for osteoarthritis management. Springerplus. 2013;2:56.

12. Kuptniratsaikul V, Dajpratham P, Taechaarpornkul W, et al. Efficacy and safety of Curcuma domestica extracts compared with ibuprofen in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:451-458.

13. Shehzad A, Lee J, Lee YS. Curcumin in various cancers. Biofactors. 2013;39:56-68.

14. Sordillo LA, Sordillo PP, Helson L. Curcumin for the treatment of glioblastoma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:6373-6378.

15. Darvesh AS, Aggarwal BB, Bishayee A. Curcumin and liver cancer: a review. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2012;13:218-228.

16. Nagaraju GP, Aliya S, Zafar SF, et al. The impact of curcumin on breast cancer. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012;4:996-1007.

17. Johnson JJ, Mukhtar H. Curcumin for chemoprevention of colon cancer. Cancer Lett. 2007;255:170-181.

18. Dorai T, Cao YC, Dorai B, et al. Therapeutic potential of curcumin in human prostate cancer. III. Curcumin inhibits proliferation, induces apoptosis, and inhibits angiogenesis of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in vivo. Prostate. 2001;47:293-303.

19. Hazarey VK, Sakrikar AR, Ganvir SM. Efficacy of curcumin in the treatment for oral submucous fibrosis - a randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2015;19:145-152.

20. Lal B, Kapoor AK, Asthana OP, et al. Efficacy of curcumin in the management of chronic anterior uveitis. Phytother Res. 1999;13:318-322.

21. Kapakos G, Youreva V, Srivastava AK. Cardiovascular protection by curcumin: molecular aspects. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2012;49:306-315.

22. Yang F, Lim GP, Begum AN, et al. Curcumin inhibits formation of amyloid beta oligomers and fibrils, binds plaques, and reduces amyloid in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:5892-5901.

23. Heck AM, DeWitt BA, Lukes AL. Potential interactions between alternative therapies and warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57:1221-1227.

24. Srivastava JK, Shankar E, Gupta S. Chamomile: a herbal medicine of the past with bright future. Mol Med Rep. 2010;3:895-901.

25. Ross SM. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): efficacy of standardized matricaria recutita (german chamomile) extract in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Holistic Nursing Practice. 2013;27:366- 368.

26. Amsterdam JD, Li Y, Soeller I, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:378-382.

27. Zick SM, Wright BD, Sen A, et al. Preliminary examination of the efficacy and safety of a standardized chamomile extract for chronic primary insomnia: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011;11:78.

28. Leach MJ, Page AT. Herbal medicine for insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2015;24:1-12.

29. Weizman Z, Alkrinawi S, Goldfarb D, et al. Efficacy of herbal tea preparation in infantile colic. J Pediatr. 1993;122:650.

30. Crotteau CA, Wright ST, Eglash A. Clinical inquiries. What is the best treatment for infants with colic? J Fam Pract. 2006;55:634-636.

31. Panahi Y, Taghizadeh M, Marzony ET, et al. Rosemary oil vs minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a randomized comparative trial. Skinmed. 2015;13:15-21.

32. Hay IC, Jamieson M, Ormerod AD. Randomized trial of aromatherapy. Successful treatment for alopecia areata. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1349-1352.

33. Caffeine and kids: FDA takes a closer look. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm350570.htm. Accessed: November 1, 2017.

34. Torpy JM, Livingston EH. Energy Drinks. JAMA. 2013;309:297.

35. Lopez-Garcia E, van Dam RM, Li TY, et al. The relationship of coffee consumption with mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:904-914.

36. Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, et al. Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180:763-775.

37. Loftfield E, Freedman ND, Graubard BI, et al. Association of coffee consumption with overall and cause-specific mortality in a large US prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182:1010-1022.

38. Lopez-Garcia E, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Rexrode KM, et al. Coffee consumption and risk of stroke in women. Circulation. 2009;119:1116-1123.

39. Friedrich K, Smit M, Wannhoff A, et al. Coffee consumption protects against progression in liver cirrhosis and increases long-term survival after liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1470-1475.

40. Wang L, Shen X, Wu Y, et al. Coffee and caffeine consumption and depression: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50:228-242.

41. Liu F, Wang X, Wu G, et al. Coffee consumption decreases risks for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142457.

42. Grosso G, Micek A, Castellano S, et al. Coffee, tea, caffeine and risk of depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016;60:223-234.

43. Solfrizzi V, Panza F, Imbimbo BP, et al. Italian longitudinal study on aging working group. Coffee consumption habits and the risk of mild cognitive impairment: The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47:889-899.

44. Sugiyama K, Tomata Y, Kaiho Y, et al. Association between coffee consumption and incident risk of disabling dementia in elderly japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;50:491-500.

45. Driscoll I, Shumaker SA, Snively BM, et al. Relationships between caffeine intake and risk for probable dementia or global cognitive impairment: The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71:1596-1602.

46. van Dieren S, Uiterwaal CS, van der Schouw YT, et al. Coffee and tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2009;52:2561-2569.

47. Wang J, Li X, Zhang D. Coffee consumption and the risk of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55:1317-1329.

48. Liu J, Shen B, Shi M, et al. Higher caffeinated coffee intake is associated with reduced malignant melanoma risk: a meta-analysis study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147056.

49. Wikoff D, Welsh BT, Henderson R, et al. Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. Food Chem Toxical. 2017;109(Pt 1):585-648.

50. Verna R. The history and science of chocolate. Malays J Pathol. 2013;35:111-121.

51. Katz DL, Doughty K, Ali A. Cocoa and chocolate in human health and disease. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011;15:2779-2811. 


52. Baba S, Natsume M, Yasuda A, et al. Plasma LDL and HDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL concentrations are altered in normo- and hypercholesterolemic humans after intake of different levels of cocoa powder. J Nutr. 2007;137:1436-1441.

53. Mellor DD, Sathyapalan T, Kilpatrick ES, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves HDL cholesterol in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabet Med. 2010;27:1318-1321.

54. Tokede OA, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Effects of cocoa products/dark chocolate on serum lipids: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65:879-886.

55. Jia L, Liu X, Bai YY, et al. Short-term effect of cocoa product consumption on lipid profile: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:218-225.

56. Rostami A, Khalili M, Haghighat N, et al. High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves blood pressure in patients with diabetes and hypertension. ARYA Atheroscler. 2015;11:21-29.

57. Buitrago-Lopez A, Sanderson J, Johnson L, et al. Chocolate consumption and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;26;343:d4488.

58. Wang X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, et al. Flavonoid intake and risk of CVD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;111:1-11.

59. Zomer E, Owen A, Magliano DJ, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dark chocolate consumption as prevention therapy in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: best case scenario analysis using a Markov model. BMJ. 2012;344:e3657.

60. Larsson SC, Virtamo J, Wolk A. Chocolate consumption and risk of stroke: a prospective cohort of men and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2012;79:1223-1229.

61. Khawaja O, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Chocolate and coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2011;13:447-452.

62. Jacques PF, Cassidy A, Rogers G, et al. Dietary flavonoid intakes and CVD incidence in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. Br J Nutr. 2015;114:1496-1503.

63. Taubert D, Roesen R, Lehmann C, et al. Effects of low habitual cocoa intake on blood pressure and bioactive nitric oxide: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298:49-60.

64. Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, et al. Effect of cocoa products on blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:97-103.

65. Ried K, Sullivan TR, Fakler P, et al. Effect of cocoa on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008893.

66. Saftlas AF, Triche EW, Beydoun H, et al. Does chocolate intake during pregnancy reduce the risks of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension? Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20:584-591.

67. Triche EW, Grosso LM, Belanger K, et al. Chocolate consumption in pregnancy and reduced likelihood of preeclampsia. Epidemiology. 2008;19:459-464.

68. Grassi D, Lippi C, Necozione S, et al. Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:611-614.

69. Matsumoto C, Petrone AB, Sesso HD, et al. Chocolate consumption and risk of diabetes mellitus in the Physicians’ Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:362-367.

70. Lippi D. Chocolate in history: food, medicine, medi-food. Nutrients. 2013;5:1573-1584.

71. Sathyapalan T, Beckett S, Rigby AS, et al. High cocoa polyphenol rich chocolate may reduce the burden of the symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome. Nutr J. 2010;9:55.

72. Martin FP, Antille N, Rezzi S, et al. Everyday eating experiences of chocolate and non-chocolate snacks impact postprandial anxiety, energy and emotional states. Nutrients. 2012;4:554-567.

73. Patel S, Mathan JJ, Vaghefi E, et al. The effect of flavonoids on visual function in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:1841-1850.

74. Moreira A, Diógenes MJ, de Mendonça A, et al. Chocolate consumption is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;53:85-93.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(1)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(1)
Page Number
E1-E9
Page Number
E1-E9
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The evidence for herbal and botanical remedies, Part 2
Display Headline
The evidence for herbal and botanical remedies, Part 2
Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Inform patients that curcumin appears to be a safe and effective adjunctive therapy for ulcerative colitis when used along with mesalamine or sulfasalazine. B

› Recommend chamomile extract to patients experiencing mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder. B

› Tell patients that coffee is associated with a lower risk of mortality, reduced cardiovascular events, and a reduction in liver disease progression (in patients with end-stage liver disease). B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
PubMed ID
29309470
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Herbals
Article PDF Media

Managing Dyspepsia

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/13/2016 - 10:27
Display Headline
Managing Dyspepsia
Although most cases of dyspepsia lack a structural cause, patients often suffer intermittently for years. This article and treatment algorithm present an optimal patient management approach.

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population experiences dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and OTC products, while others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted, and thus it is not known whether the dyspepsia is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD­­—ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection7—and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those treated in a primary care setting, experience significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 This article and the dyspepsia treatment algorithm5,7-12 describe an evidence-based patient management approach.

SYMPTOMS AND CAUSES: WHAT TO LOOK FOR
The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last three months and have had an onset ≥ 6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, as well as a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and NSAIDs—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes nonulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium  and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia. But thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

A range of disorders included in the differential
The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21

The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk for uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs versus a three- to four-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with just one of these risk factors.22

Continue for the workup starts with a search for red flags >>

 

 


THE WORKUP STARTS WITH A SEARCH FOR RED FLAGS
Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)5,8,12
• Family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• Unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• Progressive dysphagia
• Unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• Persistent vomiting
• Palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• Jaundice.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is > 97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow
A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (see Table 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to ­initially test only those at high risk. (Testing and treating H pylori will be explored further.)

INITIATE ACID SUPPRESSION THERAPY FOR LOW-RISK PATIENTS
Firstline treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions, and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have tested negative, is a four- to eight-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence
In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within two to six weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg bid) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg bid) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at six months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after four to eight weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

Continue for when to test for H pylori ... >>

 

 


WHEN TO TEST FOR H PYLORI ...
Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking PPIs or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between active and past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least two weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least two weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are three types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90% and specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

Continue for how to treat it >>

 

 


... AND HOW TO TREAT IT
H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk for noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk for cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk for gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT = 14).37 A 2011 study on the ­effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% ­improvement in symptoms.38

The triple-therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common firstline H pylori treatment in the US and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (see Table 2).39-44 The standard duration is seven days.

A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple-therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a five-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another five-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to seven-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for seven to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a seven-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% (vs 73.3% for a seven-day course of triple therapy).41

Quadruple therapy has two variations: bismuth-based and nonbismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for seven to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist
If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-­associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least four to six weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

Continue for more options for challenging cases >>

 

 


MORE OPTIONS FOR CHALLENGING CASES
Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for OTC antacids or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmodic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychologic interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

REFERENCES
1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.
2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.
3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87-98.
4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.
5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.
6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.
7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.
8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.
9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelhood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.
10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.
11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.
12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.
13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.
14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.
15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.
16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.
17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.
18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.
19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.
20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.
21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.
22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.
23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.
24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.
25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.
26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.
27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.
28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.
29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.
30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.
31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.
32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.
33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.
34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.
35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.
36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.
37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.
38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.
39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12): CD008337.
40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.
41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.
42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.
43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.
44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple first-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.
45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.
46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.
47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.
48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.
49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.
50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.
51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

References

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD

Michael Malone, MD, is in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at Penn State Hershey College of Medicine in Pennsylvania. The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
32-34,36,38-40
Legacy Keywords
dyspepsia, Helicobacter pylori, gastroenterology, gastrointestinal, GI, functional dyspepsia, undifferentiated dyspepsia, FD, leaky gut, LOAD therapy, levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, doxycycline, urea breath testing
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD

Michael Malone, MD, is in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at Penn State Hershey College of Medicine in Pennsylvania. The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD

Michael Malone, MD, is in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at Penn State Hershey College of Medicine in Pennsylvania. The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Although most cases of dyspepsia lack a structural cause, patients often suffer intermittently for years. This article and treatment algorithm present an optimal patient management approach.
Although most cases of dyspepsia lack a structural cause, patients often suffer intermittently for years. This article and treatment algorithm present an optimal patient management approach.

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population experiences dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and OTC products, while others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted, and thus it is not known whether the dyspepsia is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD­­—ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection7—and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those treated in a primary care setting, experience significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 This article and the dyspepsia treatment algorithm5,7-12 describe an evidence-based patient management approach.

SYMPTOMS AND CAUSES: WHAT TO LOOK FOR
The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last three months and have had an onset ≥ 6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, as well as a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and NSAIDs—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes nonulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium  and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia. But thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

A range of disorders included in the differential
The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21

The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk for uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs versus a three- to four-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with just one of these risk factors.22

Continue for the workup starts with a search for red flags >>

 

 


THE WORKUP STARTS WITH A SEARCH FOR RED FLAGS
Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)5,8,12
• Family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• Unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• Progressive dysphagia
• Unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• Persistent vomiting
• Palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• Jaundice.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is > 97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow
A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (see Table 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to ­initially test only those at high risk. (Testing and treating H pylori will be explored further.)

INITIATE ACID SUPPRESSION THERAPY FOR LOW-RISK PATIENTS
Firstline treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions, and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have tested negative, is a four- to eight-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence
In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within two to six weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg bid) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg bid) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at six months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after four to eight weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

Continue for when to test for H pylori ... >>

 

 


WHEN TO TEST FOR H PYLORI ...
Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking PPIs or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between active and past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least two weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least two weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are three types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90% and specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

Continue for how to treat it >>

 

 


... AND HOW TO TREAT IT
H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk for noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk for cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk for gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT = 14).37 A 2011 study on the ­effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% ­improvement in symptoms.38

The triple-therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common firstline H pylori treatment in the US and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (see Table 2).39-44 The standard duration is seven days.

A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple-therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a five-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another five-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to seven-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for seven to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a seven-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% (vs 73.3% for a seven-day course of triple therapy).41

Quadruple therapy has two variations: bismuth-based and nonbismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for seven to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist
If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-­associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least four to six weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

Continue for more options for challenging cases >>

 

 


MORE OPTIONS FOR CHALLENGING CASES
Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for OTC antacids or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmodic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychologic interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

REFERENCES
1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.
2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.
3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87-98.
4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.
5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.
6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.
7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.
8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.
9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelhood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.
10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.
11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.
12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.
13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.
14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.
15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.
16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.
17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.
18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.
19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.
20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.
21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.
22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.
23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.
24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.
25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.
26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.
27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.
28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.
29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.
30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.
31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.
32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.
33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.
34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.
35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.
36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.
37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.
38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.
39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12): CD008337.
40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.
41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.
42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.
43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.
44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple first-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.
45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.
46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.
47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.
48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.
49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.
50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.
51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population experiences dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and OTC products, while others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted, and thus it is not known whether the dyspepsia is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD­­—ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection7—and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those treated in a primary care setting, experience significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 This article and the dyspepsia treatment algorithm5,7-12 describe an evidence-based patient management approach.

SYMPTOMS AND CAUSES: WHAT TO LOOK FOR
The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last three months and have had an onset ≥ 6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, as well as a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and NSAIDs—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes nonulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium  and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia. But thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

A range of disorders included in the differential
The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21

The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk for uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs versus a three- to four-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with just one of these risk factors.22

Continue for the workup starts with a search for red flags >>

 

 


THE WORKUP STARTS WITH A SEARCH FOR RED FLAGS
Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)5,8,12
• Family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• Unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• Progressive dysphagia
• Unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• Persistent vomiting
• Palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• Jaundice.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is > 97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow
A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (see Table 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to ­initially test only those at high risk. (Testing and treating H pylori will be explored further.)

INITIATE ACID SUPPRESSION THERAPY FOR LOW-RISK PATIENTS
Firstline treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions, and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have tested negative, is a four- to eight-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence
In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within two to six weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg bid) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg bid) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at six months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after four to eight weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

Continue for when to test for H pylori ... >>

 

 


WHEN TO TEST FOR H PYLORI ...
Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking PPIs or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between active and past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least two weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least two weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are three types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90% and specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

Continue for how to treat it >>

 

 


... AND HOW TO TREAT IT
H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk for noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk for cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk for gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT = 14).37 A 2011 study on the ­effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% ­improvement in symptoms.38

The triple-therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common firstline H pylori treatment in the US and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (see Table 2).39-44 The standard duration is seven days.

A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple-therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a five-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another five-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to seven-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for seven to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a seven-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% (vs 73.3% for a seven-day course of triple therapy).41

Quadruple therapy has two variations: bismuth-based and nonbismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for seven to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist
If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-­associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least four to six weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

Continue for more options for challenging cases >>

 

 


MORE OPTIONS FOR CHALLENGING CASES
Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for OTC antacids or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmodic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychologic interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

REFERENCES
1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.
2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.
3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87-98.
4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.
5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.
6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.
7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.
8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.
9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelhood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.
10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.
11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.
12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.
13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.
14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.
15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.
16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.
17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.
18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.
19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.
20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.
21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.
22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.
23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.
24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.
25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.
26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.
27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.
28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.
29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.
30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.
31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.
32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.
33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.
34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.
35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.
36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.
37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.
38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.
39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12): CD008337.
40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.
41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.
42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.
43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.
44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple first-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.
45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.
46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.
47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.
48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.
49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.
50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.
51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

References

References

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(10)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(10)
Page Number
32-34,36,38-40
Page Number
32-34,36,38-40
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Managing Dyspepsia
Display Headline
Managing Dyspepsia
Legacy Keywords
dyspepsia, Helicobacter pylori, gastroenterology, gastrointestinal, GI, functional dyspepsia, undifferentiated dyspepsia, FD, leaky gut, LOAD therapy, levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, doxycycline, urea breath testing
Legacy Keywords
dyspepsia, Helicobacter pylori, gastroenterology, gastrointestinal, GI, functional dyspepsia, undifferentiated dyspepsia, FD, leaky gut, LOAD therapy, levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, doxycycline, urea breath testing
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Managing Dyspepsia

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/13/2016 - 10:27
Display Headline
Managing Dyspepsia

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Review the medications taken by patients who suffer from dyspepsia, as many drugs—bisphosphonates, antibiotics, steroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others—are associated with this condition. B
› Order an esophagogastroduodenoscopy for patients ages 55 years or older with new-onset dyspepsia and those who have red flags for more serious conditions, eg, a history of upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, unintended weight loss, GI bleeding, dysphagia, or a palpable mass. C
› Prescribe acid suppression therapy as first-line treatment for patients who have dyspepsia but are at low risk or have tested negative for Helicobacter pylori infection. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population suffers from dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and over-the-counter products, but others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Compared with the general public, patients with functional dyspepsia have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted and thus it is not known whether it is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD, ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection,7 and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those you’ll treat in a primary care setting, suffer significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 In the text and dyspepsia treatment ALGORITHM5,7-12 that follow, you’ll find an evidence-based patient management approach.

Symptoms and causes: What to look for

The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last 3 months and have had an onset ≥6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common, but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD

While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide, but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30 years of age. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes non-ulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia. The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, highquality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

 

 

A range of disorders included in the differential

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn’s disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased, and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21 The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk of uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs vs a 3- to 4-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with either of these risk factors alone.22

The work-up starts with a search for red flags

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD):5,8,12
• family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• progressive dysphagia
• unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• persistent vomiting
• palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• jaundice.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is >97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 years or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett’s esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow

A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia, but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (TABLE 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to initially test only those at high risk. (More on testing and treating H pylori in a bit.)

Initiate acid suppression therapy for low-risk patients

First-line treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have been tested for it and had negative results is a 4- to 8-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

 

 

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence

In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within 2 to 6 weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

Suspect gastroesophageal reflux disease, rather than dyspepsia, in a patient who has retrosternal burning and regurgitation that worsen when lying down.

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs, and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg BID) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg BID) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at 6 months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after 4 to 8 weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

When to test for H pylori ...

Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for the presence of H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between an active or past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are 3 types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90%; specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

... and how to treat it

H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk of noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk of cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk of gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

IgG serology testing should not be used for any patient who was previously diagnosed with, or treated for, H pylori because this type of test can’t distinguish between an active or past infection.

 

 

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT=14).37 A 2011 study on the effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% improvement in symptoms.38

The triple therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common first-line H pylori treatment in the United States, and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (TABLE 2).39-44 The standard duration is 7 days. A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a 5-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another 5-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to 7-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for 7 to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a 7-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% vs 73.3% for a 7-day course of triple therapy.41

Quadruple therapy has 2 variations: bismuth-based and non-bismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for 7 to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist

If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least 4 to 6 weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

More options for challenging cases

Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for over-the-counter antacids, such as TUMS, or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmotic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychological interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

CORRESPONDENCE 
Michael Malone, MD, 845 Fishburn Road, Hershey, PA 17053; mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

References

1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.

2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.

3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87–98.

4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.

5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.

6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.

7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.

8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.

9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelihood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.

10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.

11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.

12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.

13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.

14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.

15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.

16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.

17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.

18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.

19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.

20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.

21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.

22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.

23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.

24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H. pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.

25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.

26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.

27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.

28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.

29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.

30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of endoscopy-based and serum-based methods for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.

31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.

32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.

33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.

34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.

35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.

36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.

37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.

38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.

39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD008337.

40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.

41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.

42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H. pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.

43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.

44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple firstline therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.

45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.

46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.

47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.

48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.

49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.

50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs. sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.

51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD

Michael Malone, MD, is from the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, Hershey.

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
350-357
Legacy Keywords
Michael Malone, MD; dyspepsia; Helicobacter pylori infection; H pylori; FD; functional dyspepsia; urea breath testing; gastrointestinal
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD

Michael Malone, MD, is from the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, Hershey.

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD

Michael Malone, MD, is from the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, Hershey.

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Review the medications taken by patients who suffer from dyspepsia, as many drugs—bisphosphonates, antibiotics, steroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others—are associated with this condition. B
› Order an esophagogastroduodenoscopy for patients ages 55 years or older with new-onset dyspepsia and those who have red flags for more serious conditions, eg, a history of upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, unintended weight loss, GI bleeding, dysphagia, or a palpable mass. C
› Prescribe acid suppression therapy as first-line treatment for patients who have dyspepsia but are at low risk or have tested negative for Helicobacter pylori infection. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population suffers from dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and over-the-counter products, but others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Compared with the general public, patients with functional dyspepsia have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted and thus it is not known whether it is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD, ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection,7 and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those you’ll treat in a primary care setting, suffer significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 In the text and dyspepsia treatment ALGORITHM5,7-12 that follow, you’ll find an evidence-based patient management approach.

Symptoms and causes: What to look for

The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last 3 months and have had an onset ≥6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common, but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD

While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide, but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30 years of age. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes non-ulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia. The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, highquality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

 

 

A range of disorders included in the differential

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn’s disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased, and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21 The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk of uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs vs a 3- to 4-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with either of these risk factors alone.22

The work-up starts with a search for red flags

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD):5,8,12
• family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• progressive dysphagia
• unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• persistent vomiting
• palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• jaundice.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is >97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 years or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett’s esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow

A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia, but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (TABLE 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to initially test only those at high risk. (More on testing and treating H pylori in a bit.)

Initiate acid suppression therapy for low-risk patients

First-line treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have been tested for it and had negative results is a 4- to 8-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

 

 

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence

In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within 2 to 6 weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

Suspect gastroesophageal reflux disease, rather than dyspepsia, in a patient who has retrosternal burning and regurgitation that worsen when lying down.

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs, and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg BID) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg BID) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at 6 months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after 4 to 8 weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

When to test for H pylori ...

Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for the presence of H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between an active or past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are 3 types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90%; specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

... and how to treat it

H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk of noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk of cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk of gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

IgG serology testing should not be used for any patient who was previously diagnosed with, or treated for, H pylori because this type of test can’t distinguish between an active or past infection.

 

 

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT=14).37 A 2011 study on the effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% improvement in symptoms.38

The triple therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common first-line H pylori treatment in the United States, and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (TABLE 2).39-44 The standard duration is 7 days. A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a 5-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another 5-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to 7-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for 7 to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a 7-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% vs 73.3% for a 7-day course of triple therapy.41

Quadruple therapy has 2 variations: bismuth-based and non-bismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for 7 to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist

If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least 4 to 6 weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

More options for challenging cases

Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for over-the-counter antacids, such as TUMS, or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmotic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychological interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

CORRESPONDENCE 
Michael Malone, MD, 845 Fishburn Road, Hershey, PA 17053; mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Review the medications taken by patients who suffer from dyspepsia, as many drugs—bisphosphonates, antibiotics, steroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others—are associated with this condition. B
› Order an esophagogastroduodenoscopy for patients ages 55 years or older with new-onset dyspepsia and those who have red flags for more serious conditions, eg, a history of upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, unintended weight loss, GI bleeding, dysphagia, or a palpable mass. C
› Prescribe acid suppression therapy as first-line treatment for patients who have dyspepsia but are at low risk or have tested negative for Helicobacter pylori infection. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population suffers from dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and over-the-counter products, but others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Compared with the general public, patients with functional dyspepsia have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted and thus it is not known whether it is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD, ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection,7 and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those you’ll treat in a primary care setting, suffer significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 In the text and dyspepsia treatment ALGORITHM5,7-12 that follow, you’ll find an evidence-based patient management approach.

Symptoms and causes: What to look for

The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last 3 months and have had an onset ≥6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common, but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD

While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide, but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30 years of age. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes non-ulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia. The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, highquality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

 

 

A range of disorders included in the differential

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn’s disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased, and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21 The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk of uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs vs a 3- to 4-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with either of these risk factors alone.22

The work-up starts with a search for red flags

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD):5,8,12
• family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• progressive dysphagia
• unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• persistent vomiting
• palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• jaundice.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is >97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 years or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett’s esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow

A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia, but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (TABLE 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to initially test only those at high risk. (More on testing and treating H pylori in a bit.)

Initiate acid suppression therapy for low-risk patients

First-line treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have been tested for it and had negative results is a 4- to 8-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

 

 

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence

In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within 2 to 6 weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

Suspect gastroesophageal reflux disease, rather than dyspepsia, in a patient who has retrosternal burning and regurgitation that worsen when lying down.

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs, and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg BID) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg BID) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at 6 months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after 4 to 8 weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

When to test for H pylori ...

Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for the presence of H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between an active or past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are 3 types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90%; specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

... and how to treat it

H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk of noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk of cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk of gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

IgG serology testing should not be used for any patient who was previously diagnosed with, or treated for, H pylori because this type of test can’t distinguish between an active or past infection.

 

 

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT=14).37 A 2011 study on the effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% improvement in symptoms.38

The triple therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common first-line H pylori treatment in the United States, and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (TABLE 2).39-44 The standard duration is 7 days. A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a 5-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another 5-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to 7-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for 7 to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a 7-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% vs 73.3% for a 7-day course of triple therapy.41

Quadruple therapy has 2 variations: bismuth-based and non-bismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for 7 to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist

If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least 4 to 6 weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

More options for challenging cases

Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for over-the-counter antacids, such as TUMS, or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmotic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychological interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

CORRESPONDENCE 
Michael Malone, MD, 845 Fishburn Road, Hershey, PA 17053; mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

References

1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.

2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.

3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87–98.

4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.

5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.

6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.

7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.

8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.

9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelihood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.

10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.

11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.

12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.

13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.

14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.

15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.

16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.

17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.

18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.

19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.

20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.

21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.

22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.

23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.

24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H. pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.

25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.

26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.

27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.

28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.

29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.

30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of endoscopy-based and serum-based methods for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.

31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.

32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.

33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.

34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.

35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.

36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.

37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.

38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.

39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD008337.

40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.

41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.

42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H. pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.

43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.

44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple firstline therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.

45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.

46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.

47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.

48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.

49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.

50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs. sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.

51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

References

1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.

2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.

3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87–98.

4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.

5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.

6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.

7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.

8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.

9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelihood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.

10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.

11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.

12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.

13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.

14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.

15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.

16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.

17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.

18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.

19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.

20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.

21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.

22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.

23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.

24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H. pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.

25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.

26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.

27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.

28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.

29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.

30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of endoscopy-based and serum-based methods for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.

31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.

32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.

33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.

34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.

35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.

36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.

37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.

38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.

39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD008337.

40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.

41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.

42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H. pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.

43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.

44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple firstline therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.

45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.

46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.

47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.

48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.

49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.

50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs. sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.

51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(6)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(6)
Page Number
350-357
Page Number
350-357
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Managing Dyspepsia
Display Headline
Managing Dyspepsia
Legacy Keywords
Michael Malone, MD; dyspepsia; Helicobacter pylori infection; H pylori; FD; functional dyspepsia; urea breath testing; gastrointestinal
Legacy Keywords
Michael Malone, MD; dyspepsia; Helicobacter pylori infection; H pylori; FD; functional dyspepsia; urea breath testing; gastrointestinal
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Managing dyspepsia

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 13:58
Display Headline
Managing dyspepsia

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Review the medications taken by patients who suffer from dyspepsia, as many drugs—bisphosphonates, antibiotics, steroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others—are associated with this condition. B
› Order an esophagogastroduodenoscopy for patients ages 55 years or older with new-onset dyspepsia and those who have red flags for more serious conditions, eg, a history of upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, unintended weight loss, GI bleeding, dysphagia, or a palpable mass. C
› Prescribe acid suppression therapy as first-line treatment for patients who have dyspepsia but are at low risk or have tested negative for Helicobacter pylori infection. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population suffers from dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and over-the-counter products, but others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Compared with the general public, patients with functional dyspepsia have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted and thus it is not known whether it is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD, ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection,7 and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those you’ll treat in a primary care setting, suffer significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 In the text and dyspepsia treatment ALGORITHM5,7-12 that follow, you’ll find an evidence-based patient management approach.

Symptoms and causes: What to look for

The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last 3 months and have had an onset ≥6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common, but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD

While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide, but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30 years of age. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes non-ulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia. The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, highquality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

 

 

A range of disorders included in the differential

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn’s disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased, and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21 The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk of uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs vs a 3- to 4-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with either of these risk factors alone.22

The work-up starts with a search for red flags

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD):5,8,12
• family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• progressive dysphagia
• unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• persistent vomiting
• palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• jaundice.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is >97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 years or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett’s esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow

A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia, but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (TABLE 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to initially test only those at high risk. (More on testing and treating H pylori in a bit.)

Initiate acid suppression therapy for low-risk patients

First-line treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have been tested for it and had negative results is a 4- to 8-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

 

 

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence

In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within 2 to 6 weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

Suspect gastroesophageal reflux disease, rather than dyspepsia, in a patient who has retrosternal burning and regurgitation that worsen when lying down.

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs, and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg BID) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg BID) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at 6 months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after 4 to 8 weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

When to test for H pylori ...

Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for the presence of H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between an active or past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are 3 types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90%; specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

... and how to treat it

H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk of noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk of cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk of gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

IgG serology testing should not be used for any patient who was previously diagnosed with, or treated for, H pylori because this type of test can’t distinguish between an active or past infection.

 

 

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT=14).37 A 2011 study on the effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% improvement in symptoms.38

The triple therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common first-line H pylori treatment in the United States, and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (TABLE 2).39-44 The standard duration is 7 days. A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a 5-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another 5-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to 7-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for 7 to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a 7-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% vs 73.3% for a 7-day course of triple therapy.41

Quadruple therapy has 2 variations: bismuth-based and non-bismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for 7 to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist

If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least 4 to 6 weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

More options for challenging cases

Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for over-the-counter antacids, such as TUMS, or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmotic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychological interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

CORRESPONDENCE 
Michael Malone, MD, 845 Fishburn Road, Hershey, PA 17053; mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

References

1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.

2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.

3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87–98.

4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.

5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.

6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.

7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.

8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.

9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelihood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.

10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.

11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.

12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.

13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.

14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.

15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.

16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.

17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.

18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.

19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.

20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.

21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.

22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.

23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.

24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H. pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.

25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.

26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.

27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.

28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.

29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.

30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of endoscopy-based and serum-based methods for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.

31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.

32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.

33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.

34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.

35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.

36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.

37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.

38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.

39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD008337.

40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.

41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.

42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H. pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.

43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.

44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple firstline therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.

45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.

46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.

47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.

48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.

49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.

50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs. sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.

51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, Hershey

mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
350-357
Legacy Keywords
Michael Malone, MD; dyspepsia; Helicobacter pylori infection; H pylori; FD; functional dyspepsia; urea breath testing; gastrointestinal
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, Hershey

mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Malone, MD
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, Hershey

mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Review the medications taken by patients who suffer from dyspepsia, as many drugs—bisphosphonates, antibiotics, steroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others—are associated with this condition. B
› Order an esophagogastroduodenoscopy for patients ages 55 years or older with new-onset dyspepsia and those who have red flags for more serious conditions, eg, a history of upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, unintended weight loss, GI bleeding, dysphagia, or a palpable mass. C
› Prescribe acid suppression therapy as first-line treatment for patients who have dyspepsia but are at low risk or have tested negative for Helicobacter pylori infection. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population suffers from dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and over-the-counter products, but others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Compared with the general public, patients with functional dyspepsia have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted and thus it is not known whether it is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD, ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection,7 and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those you’ll treat in a primary care setting, suffer significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 In the text and dyspepsia treatment ALGORITHM5,7-12 that follow, you’ll find an evidence-based patient management approach.

Symptoms and causes: What to look for

The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last 3 months and have had an onset ≥6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common, but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD

While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide, but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30 years of age. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes non-ulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia. The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, highquality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

 

 

A range of disorders included in the differential

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn’s disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased, and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21 The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk of uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs vs a 3- to 4-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with either of these risk factors alone.22

The work-up starts with a search for red flags

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD):5,8,12
• family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• progressive dysphagia
• unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• persistent vomiting
• palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• jaundice.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is >97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 years or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett’s esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow

A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia, but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (TABLE 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to initially test only those at high risk. (More on testing and treating H pylori in a bit.)

Initiate acid suppression therapy for low-risk patients

First-line treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have been tested for it and had negative results is a 4- to 8-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

 

 

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence

In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within 2 to 6 weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

Suspect gastroesophageal reflux disease, rather than dyspepsia, in a patient who has retrosternal burning and regurgitation that worsen when lying down.

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs, and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg BID) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg BID) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at 6 months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after 4 to 8 weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

When to test for H pylori ...

Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for the presence of H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between an active or past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are 3 types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90%; specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

... and how to treat it

H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk of noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk of cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk of gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

IgG serology testing should not be used for any patient who was previously diagnosed with, or treated for, H pylori because this type of test can’t distinguish between an active or past infection.

 

 

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT=14).37 A 2011 study on the effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% improvement in symptoms.38

The triple therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common first-line H pylori treatment in the United States, and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (TABLE 2).39-44 The standard duration is 7 days. A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a 5-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another 5-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to 7-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for 7 to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a 7-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% vs 73.3% for a 7-day course of triple therapy.41

Quadruple therapy has 2 variations: bismuth-based and non-bismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for 7 to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist

If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least 4 to 6 weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

More options for challenging cases

Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for over-the-counter antacids, such as TUMS, or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmotic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychological interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

CORRESPONDENCE 
Michael Malone, MD, 845 Fishburn Road, Hershey, PA 17053; mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Review the medications taken by patients who suffer from dyspepsia, as many drugs—bisphosphonates, antibiotics, steroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others—are associated with this condition. B
› Order an esophagogastroduodenoscopy for patients ages 55 years or older with new-onset dyspepsia and those who have red flags for more serious conditions, eg, a history of upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, unintended weight loss, GI bleeding, dysphagia, or a palpable mass. C
› Prescribe acid suppression therapy as first-line treatment for patients who have dyspepsia but are at low risk or have tested negative for Helicobacter pylori infection. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Each year, an estimated 25% to 30% of the US population suffers from dyspepsia.1 Most self-treat with home remedies and over-the-counter products, but others seek medical care. Dyspepsia accounts for an estimated 2% to 5% of primary care visits annually,2 mostly by patients who are found to have no organic, or structural, cause for their symptoms.1,3

Compared with the general public, patients with functional dyspepsia have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.

Such patients are said to have functional dyspepsia (FD), a category that applies to about two-thirds of those with dyspepsia.1 A small number of cases are categorized as organic dyspepsia, indicating the presence of a clear structural or anatomic cause, such as an ulcer or mass. The remainder are said to have undifferentiated dyspepsia, which simply means that their signs and symptoms do not rise to the level for which further investigation is warranted and thus it is not known whether it is functional or organic.

There are many possible causes of FD, ranging from medications3,4 to abnormal gastroduodenal motility5,6 to Helicobacter pylori infection,7 and a comprehensive differential diagnosis. The first step in an investigation is to rule out red flags suggestive of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer or other serious disorders.

Patients with FD, like the vast majority of those you’ll treat in a primary care setting, suffer significant morbidity. Most have chronic symptoms, with intermittent flare-ups interspersed with periods of remission.8 In the text and dyspepsia treatment ALGORITHM5,7-12 that follow, you’ll find an evidence-based patient management approach.

Symptoms and causes: What to look for

The primary symptoms of dyspepsia include bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiety, and epigastric pain and burning. To meet the Rome criteria for dyspepsia, these symptoms must have been present for the last 3 months and have had an onset ≥6 months prior to diagnosis.2 Recurrent belching and nausea are also common, but are not included in the Rome diagnostic criteria.

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of the condition, however, and more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.13,14 Indeed, anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with FD and a risk factor for the diagnosis. Compared with the general public, patients with FD have been found to have higher levels of anxiety, chronic tension, hostility, and hypochondriasis, and a tendency to be more pessimistic.15

Possible causes of FD

While the etiology of organic dyspepsia is clear, the cause of FD is often far more difficult to determine.

Medication use should always be considered, as many types of drugs—including bisphosphonates, antibiotics, narcotics, steroids, iron, metformin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—are associated with dyspepsia.3,4

Gastroduodenal motility and accommodation, which has been found in numerous studies of patients with FD, is a proposed etiology.5,6

Visceral hypersensitivity also appears to play a role. In one study of patients with severe dyspepsia, 87% of those with FD had a reduced or altered GI pain threshold, compared with 20% of those with organic dyspepsia.16

H pylori, commonly linked to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is also associated with both organic dyspepsia and FD.17,18 The gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium is present in approximately half of the population worldwide, but is more common in developing nations.7H pylori immunoglobulin G (IgG) is more prevalent in patients with dyspepsia, particularly in those younger than 30 years of age. The exact mechanism by which H pylori causes non-ulcerative dyspepsia is not clear, but inflammation, dysmotility, visceral hypersensitivity, and alteration of acid secretion have all been proposed.17

Dysfunctional intestinal epithelium is increasingly being considered in the pathophysiology of dyspepsia, among other conditions. Researchers theorize that certain foods, toxins, infections, and/or other stressors lead to changes in the structure and function of tight junctions, resulting in increased intestinal permeability.19 This in turn is thought to allow the outflow of antigens through the leaky epithelium and to stimulate an immune response—a process that may play a role in the increased GI inflammation or hypersensitivity associated with dyspepsia. The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, highquality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

 

 

A range of disorders included in the differential

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

The primary differential diagnosis for dyspepsia includes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, chronic PUD (including both gastric and duodenal ulcers), and malignancy. The differential may also include biliary disorder, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or other liver disease; chronic abdominal wall pain, irritable bowel syndrome, motility disorders, or infiltrative diseases of the stomach (eosinophilic gastritis, Crohn’s disease, sarcoidosis); celiac disease and food sensitivities/allergies, including gluten, lactose, and other intolerances; cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmias; intestinal angina; small intestine bacterial overgrowth; heavy metal toxicity; and hypercalcemia.8

Ulcers are found in approximately 10% of patients undergoing evaluation for dyspepsia.8 Previously, PUD was almost exclusively due to H pylori infection. In developed countries, however, chronic use of NSAIDs, including aspirin, has increased, and is now responsible for most ulcer diseases.20,21 The combination of H pylori infection and NSAID usage appears to be synergistic, with the risk of uncomplicated PUD estimated to be 17.5 times higher among those who test positive for H pylori and take NSAIDs vs a 3- to 4-fold increase in ulcer incidence among those with either of these risk factors alone.22

The work-up starts with a search for red flags

Symptom severity is a poor predictor of the seriousness of dyspepsia; more intense symptoms are no more likely than milder cases to have an organic cause.

Evaluation of a patient with dyspepsia begins with a thorough history. Start by determining whether the patient has any red flags, or alarm features, that may be associated with a more serious condition—particularly an underlying malignancy. One or more of the following is an indication for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD):5,8,12
• family and/or personal history of upper GI cancer
• unintended weight loss
• GI bleeding
• progressive dysphagia
• unexplained iron-deficiency anemia
• persistent vomiting
• palpable mass or lymphadenopathy
• jaundice.

The “leaky gut” theory may eventually lead to new ways to treat dyspepsia, but thus far, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of treatments aimed at this mechanism is lacking.

While it is important to rule out these red flags, they are poor predictors of malignancy.23,24 With the exception of a single study, their positive predictive value was a mere 1%.8 Their usefulness lies in their ability to exclude malignancy, however; when none of these features is present, the negative predictive value for malignancy is >97%.8

Age is also a risk factor. In addition to red flags, EGD is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) for patients with new-onset dyspepsia who are 55 years or older—an age at which upper GI malignancy becomes more common. A repeat EGD is rarely indicated, unless Barrett’s esophagus or severe erosive esophagitis is found on the initial EGD.25

Physical exam, H pylori evaluation follow

A physical examination of all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of dyspepsia is crucial. While the exam is usually normal, it may reveal epigastric tenderness on abdominal palpation. Rebound tenderness, guarding, or evidence of other abnormalities should raise the prospect of alternative diagnoses. GERD, for example, has many symptoms in common with dyspepsia, but is a more likely diagnosis in a patient who has retrosternal burning discomfort and regurgitation and reports that symptoms worsen at night and when lying down.

Lab work has limited value. Although laboratory work is not specifically addressed in the AGA guidelines (except for H pylori testing), a complete blood count is a reasonable part of an initial evaluation of dyspepsia to check for anemia. Other routine blood work is not needed, but further lab testing may be warranted based on the history, exam, and differential diagnosis.

H pylori risk. Because of the association between dyspepsia and H pylori, evaluating the patient’s risk for infection with this bacterium, based primarily on his or her current and previous living conditions (TABLE 1),9 is the next step. Although a test for H pylori could be included in the initial work-up of all patients with dyspepsia, a better—and more cost-effective—strategy is to initially test only those at high risk. (More on testing and treating H pylori in a bit.)

Initiate acid suppression therapy for low-risk patients

First-line treatment for patients with dyspepsia who have no red flags for malignancy or other serious conditions and either are not at high risk for H pylori or are at high risk but have been tested for it and had negative results is a 4- to 8-week course of acid suppression therapy. Patients at low risk for H pylori should be tested for the bacterium only if therapy fails to alleviate their symptoms.9

 

 

H2RAs or PPIs? A look at the evidence

In a Cochrane review, both H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were significantly more effective than placebo for treating FD.26 However, H2RAs can lead to tachyphylaxis—an acute decrease in response to a drug—within 2 to 6 weeks, thus limiting their long-term efficacy.27

Suspect gastroesophageal reflux disease, rather than dyspepsia, in a patient who has retrosternal burning and regurgitation that worsen when lying down.

PPIs appear to be more effective than H2RAs, and are the AGA’s acid suppression drug of choice.11 The CADET study, a randomized controlled trial comparing PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg/d) with an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg BID) and a prokinetic agent (cisapride 20 mg BID) as well as placebo for dyspepsia, found the PPI to be superior to the H2RA at 6 months.28 In a systematic review, the number needed to treat with PPI therapy for improvement of dyspepsia symptoms was 9.29

There is no specified time limit for the use of PPIs. AGA guidelines recommend that patients who respond to initial therapy stop treatment after 4 to 8 weeks.11 If symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified; if necessary, therapy can continue long term. However, patients should be made aware of the risk for vitamin deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture, as well as arrhythmias, Clostridium difficile infection, and rebound upon abrupt discontinuation of PPIs.

When to test for H pylori ...

Empiric treatment for H pylori is not recommended. Thus, testing is indicated for patients who have risk factors for the bacterium or who fail to respond to acid suppression therapy. There are various ways to test for the presence of H pylori. Which test you choose depends, in part, on patient-specific factors.

Serology. IgG serology testing is extremely useful in patients who have never been diagnosed with H pylori. It is best suited for those who are currently taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or who recently completed a course of antibiotics, since neither medication affects the results of the serology test.

Serology testing should not be used, however, for any patient who was previously diagnosed with or treated for H pylori, because this type of test cannot distinguish between an active or past infection. The IgG serology test has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%.30

Stool antigen. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies to detect the presence of H pylori have a sensitivity of 87% to 92% and a specificity of 70%. Stool antigen is also an excellent post-treatment test to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated.31

Stool testing has some drawbacks, however. PPIs can decrease the sensitivity and should be discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to stool testing.32 In addition, a stool test for H pylori is not accurate if the patient has an acute GI bleed.

Urea breath testing. This is the most sensitive and specific test for active H pylori infection (90%-96% sensitivity and 88%-96% specificity).33 PPIs can lower the sensitivity of the test, however, and are typically discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to testing. Urea breath testing, like stool testing, is an excellent way to confirm that H pylori has been eradicated after treatment. However, it is more expensive than other tests for H pylori and often inconvenient to obtain.13

An EGD is indicated for a patient who has failed to respond to acid suppression therapy and has a negative serology, stool antigen, or urea breath test for H pylori.

Biopsy-based testing for H pylori is performed with EGD and is therefore reserved for patients who have red flags or other indications of a need for invasive testing. There are 3 types of biopsy-based tests: urease (sensitivity, 70%-90%; specificity, 95%); histology (87%-92% and 70%, respectively); and culture (85%-88% and 69%, respectively). Overall, the specificity is slightly better than that of noninvasive testing, but the sensitivity can be lowered by recent use of PPIs, bismuth, or antibiotics.12,34

... and how to treat it

H pylori infection is associated with an increased risk of noncardiac gastric adenocarcinoma, but a decreased risk of cardiac gastric adenocarcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma.35,36 Thus, the potential to reduce the risk of gastric cancer is not considered an indication for H pylori treatment. The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

IgG serology testing should not be used for any patient who was previously diagnosed with, or treated for, H pylori because this type of test can’t distinguish between an active or past infection.

 

 

In a 2006 Cochrane Review, treating H pylori had a small but statistically significant benefit for patients with FD (NNT=14).37 A 2011 study on the effects of H pylori eradication on symptoms and quality of life in primary care patients with FD revealed a 12.5% improvement in quality of life and a 10.6% improvement in symptoms.38

The triple therapy regimen (a PPI + amoxicillin + clarithromycin) is the most common first-line H pylori treatment in the United States, and a good initial choice in regions in which clarithromycin resistance is low (TABLE 2).39-44 The standard duration is 7 days. A 2013 Cochrane Review showed that a longer duration (14 days) increased the rate of eradication (82% vs 73%), but this remains controversial.39 The addition of bismuth subsalicylate to the triple therapy regimen has been shown to increase the eradication rate of H pylori by approximately 10%.45 Adding probiotics (saccharomyces or lactobacillus) appears to increase eradication rates, as well.40

Sequential therapy consists of a 5-day course of treatment in which a PPI and amoxicillin are taken twice a day, followed by another 5-day course of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. A recent meta-analysis of sequential therapy showed that it is superior to 7-day triple therapy but equivalent to 14-day triple therapy.40

LOAD (levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline) therapy for 7 to 10 days can be used in place of triple therapy in areas of high resistance or for persistent H pylori. In one study, the H pylori eradication rate for a 7-day course of LOAD therapy—levofloxacin and doxycycline taken once a day, omeprazole before breakfast, and nitazoxanide twice daily—was 90% vs 73.3% for a 7-day course of triple therapy.41

Quadruple therapy has 2 variations: bismuth-based and non-bismuth (concomitant) therapy. The latter uses the base triple therapy and adds either metronidazole or tinidazole for 7 to 14 days. In a multicenter randomized trial, this concomitant therapy was found to have similar efficacy to sequential therapy.42

The possibility of improving dyspepsia symptoms is a reason to treat H pylori infection, although eradicating it does not always do so.

Bismuth-based quad therapy includes a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. A meta-analysis found it to have a higher rate of eradication than triple therapy for patients with antibiotic resistance.43,44

For persistent H pylori, a PPI, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin for 10 days has been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than quadruple therapy.12

Confirmation is indicated when symptoms persist

If dyspepsia symptoms persist after H pylori treatment, it is reasonable to retest to confirm that the infection has in fact been eradicated. Confirmation is also indicated if the patient has an H pylori-associated ulcer or a prior history of gastric cancer.

Retesting should be performed at least 4 to 6 weeks after treatment is completed. If H pylori has not been eradicated, you can try another regimen. If retesting confirms eradication and symptoms persist, EGD with biopsy is indicated. Although EGD typically has a very low yield, even for patients with red flags, this invasive test often provides reassurance and increased satisfaction for patients with persistent symptoms.46

More options for challenging cases

Managing FD is challenging when both initial acid suppression therapy and H pylori eradication fail. Unproven but low-risk treatments include modification of eating habits (eg, eating slower, not gulping food), reducing stress, discontinuing medications that may be related to symptoms, avoiding foods that seem to exacerbate symptoms, and cutting down or eliminating tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, and carbonated beverages.8 Bismuth salts have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of dyspepsia.25 Small studies have also demonstrated a favorable risk–benefit ratio for peppermint oil and caraway oil for the treatment of FD.47 Prokinetics have shown efficacy compared with placebo, although a Cochrane review questioned their efficacy based on publication bias.26

There is no good evidence of efficacy for over-the-counter antacids, such as TUMS, or for GI “cocktails” (antacid, antispasmotic, and lidocaine), sucralfate, psychological interventions (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnosis), or antidepressants.48,49 Several recent randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of dyspepsia.49,50 Ginger may also be helpful; it has been found to help with nausea in other GI conditions, but it’s uncertain whether it can help patients with dyspepsia.51

CORRESPONDENCE 
Michael Malone, MD, 845 Fishburn Road, Hershey, PA 17053; mmalone@hmc.psu.edu

References

1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.

2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.

3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87–98.

4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.

5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.

6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.

7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.

8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.

9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelihood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.

10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.

11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.

12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.

13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.

14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.

15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.

16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.

17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.

18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.

19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.

20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.

21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.

22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.

23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.

24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H. pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.

25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.

26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.

27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.

28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.

29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.

30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of endoscopy-based and serum-based methods for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.

31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.

32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.

33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.

34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.

35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.

36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.

37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.

38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.

39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD008337.

40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.

41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.

42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H. pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.

43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.

44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple firstline therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.

45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.

46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.

47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.

48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.

49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.

50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs. sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.

51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

References

1. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB. The prevalence and risk factors of functional dyspepsia in a multiethnic population in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2210-2216.

2. Talley NJ. Dyspepsia: management guidelines for the millennium. Gut. 2002;50(suppl 4):iv72–iv78.

3. Harmon RC, Peura DA. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2010;3:87–98.

4. Bazaldua OV, Schneider FD. Evaluation and management of dyspepsia. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:1773-1784.

5. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1466-1479.

6. Haag S, Talley NJ, Holtmann G. Symptom patterns in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: relationship to disturbances in gastric emptying and response to a nutrient challenge in consulters and non-consulters. Gut. 2004;53:1445-1451.

7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter Study Group. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut. 2012;61:646-664.

8. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1756-1780.

9. Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelihood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3122-3125.

10. McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1597-1604.

11. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1383-1391.

12. Chey WD, Wong BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1808-1825.

13. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA. 2006;295:1566-1576.

14. Eslick GD, Howell SC, Hammer J, et al. Empirically derived symptom sub-groups correspond poorly with diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A factor and cluster analysis of a patient sample. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:133-140.

15. Aro P, Talley NJ, Ronkainen J, et al. Anxiety is associated with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia (Rome III criteria) in a Swedish population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:94-100.

16. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, et al. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut. 1998;42:814-822.

17. O’Morain C. Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2677-2680.

18. Shmuely H, Obure S, Passaro DJ, et al. Dyspepsia symptoms and Helicobacter pylori infection, Nakuru, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1103-1107.

19. Barbara G, Zecchi L, Barbaro R, et al. Mucosal permeability and immune activation as potential therapeutic targets of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(suppl):S52-S55.

20. Liu NJ, Lee CS, Tang JH, et al. Outcomes of bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e340-e347.

21. Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Rauws EA, et al. Outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:859-864.

22. Papatheodoridis GV, Sougioultzis S, Archimandritis AJ. Effects of Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:130-142.

23. Bai Y, Li ZS, Zou DW, et al. Alarm features and age for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in Chinese patients with dyspepsia with high background prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal malignancy: an endoscopic database review of 102,665 patients from 1996 to 2006. Gut. 2010;59:722-728.

24. Vakil N. Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and H. pylori: a remembrance of things past. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:572-574.

25. Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808-816.

26. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001960.

27. Chiu CT, Hsu CM, Wang CC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: sodium alginate oral suspension is non-inferior to omeprazole in the treatment of patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1054-1064.

28. Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1477-1488.

29. Moayyedi P, Delaney BC, Vakil N, et al. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in nonulcer dyspepsia: a systematic review and economic analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1329-1337.

30. Garza-González E, Bosques-Padilla FJ, Tijerina-Menchaca R, et al. Comparison of endoscopy-based and serum-based methods for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:101-106.

31. Kodama M, Murakami K, Okimoto T, et al. Influence of proton pump inhibitor treatment on Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:44-48.

32. Shimoyama T. Stool antigen tests for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8188-8191.

33. Howden CW, Hunt RH. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2330-2338.

34. Gisbert J, Abraira V. Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:848-863.

35. Kamangar F, Dawsey SM, Blaser MJ, et al. Opposing risks of gastric cardiac and noncardia gastric adenocarcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1445-1452.

36. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Prevent Res (Phila). 2008;1:329-338.

37. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD002096.

38. Mazzoleni LE, Sander GB, Francesconi CF, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in functional dyspepsia: HEROES trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1929-1936.

39. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD008337.

40. Zou J, Dong J, Yu X. Meta-analysis: Lactobacillus containing quadruple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Helicobacter. 2009;14:97-107.

41. Basu PP, Rayapudi K, Pacana T, et al. A randomized study comparing levofloxacin, omeprazole, nitazoxanide, and doxycycline versus triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1970-1975.

42. Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with 4 drugs are equally effective for eradication of H. pylori infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:36–41.

43. Osato R, Reddy R, Reddy SG, et al. Pattern of primary resistance of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole or clarithromycin in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1217-1220.

44. Fischbach L, Evans EL. Meta-analysis: the effect of antibiotic resistance status on the efficacy of triple and quadruple firstline therapies for Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:343-357.

45. Hinostroza Morales D, Díaz Ferrer J. Addition of bismuth subsalicylate to triple eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: efficiency and adverse events. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2014;34:315-320.

46. Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295-299.

47. Hojo M, Miwa H, Yokoyama T, et al. Treatment of functional dyspepsia with antianxiety or antidepressive agents: systematic review. J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:1036-1042.

48. Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD002301.

49. Lima FA, Ferreira LE, Pace FH. Acupuncture effectiveness as a complementary therapy in functional dyspepsia patients. Arq Gastroenterol. 2013;50:202-207.

50. Ma TT, Yu SY, Li Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs. sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:552-561.

51. Koretz RL, Rotblatt M. Complementary and alternative medicine in gastroenterology: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:957-967.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(6)
Page Number
350-357
Page Number
350-357
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Managing dyspepsia
Display Headline
Managing dyspepsia
Legacy Keywords
Michael Malone, MD; dyspepsia; Helicobacter pylori infection; H pylori; FD; functional dyspepsia; urea breath testing; gastrointestinal
Legacy Keywords
Michael Malone, MD; dyspepsia; Helicobacter pylori infection; H pylori; FD; functional dyspepsia; urea breath testing; gastrointestinal
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media