A systematic review and quality assessment of case reports of adverse events for borage (Borago officinalis), coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) and comfrey (Symphytum officinale).

Symphytum officinale (comfrey), Tussilago farfara (coltsfoot) and Borago officinalis (borage) have long histories of therapeutic use, but their safety has been questioned due to the presence of unsaturated pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs). The evidence base underlying these concerns relies in part on case reports. This systematic review assesses these case reports for their reliability to inform this debate.MethodStudy selection was restricted to case reports describing possible pyrrolizidine alkaloid related harm and ingestion of comfrey, coltsfoot or borage. An extensive search of academic databases was conducted. Papers meeting the criteria were critically appraised.ResultsThe search resulted in 11 appropriate case reports, none of which involved borage. Nine reports were assessed for causality and indicated some degree of association between the material ingested and the adverse event. Lack of unequivocal identification of the species ingested compromised attribution and was a significant source of uncertainty. Three levels of identity confusions were found; misidentification or substitution at the level of the whole herb; omission of appropriate botanical identification and attribution of a specific PA to either comfrey or coltsfoot when it is a constituent found in other plants of established toxicity.ConclusionThese cases are an unreliable body of evidence on which to draw conclusions about the safety of the oral consumption of Symphytum officinale and Tussilago farfara. Toxicological studies based on oral ingestion of phytochemically-complex preparations of these herbs may be the most accurate methodology for assessing clinical risk

Biofeedback for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND:Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent condition that currently lacks highly effective therapies for its management. Biofeedback has been proposed as a therapy that may help individuals learn to exert conscious control over sympatho-vagal balance as an indirect method of symptom management. OBJECTIVES:Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of biofeedback-based interventions for IBS in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Group Specialized Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) from inception to 24 July 2019. We also searched reference lists from published trials, trial registries, device manufacturers, conference proceedings, theses, and dissertations. SELECTION CRITERIA:We judged randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion if they met the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback definition of biofeedback, and if they compared a biofeedback intervention to an active, sham, or no-treatment control for the management of IBS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were IBS global or clinical improvement scores and overall quality of life measures. Secondary outcome measures were adverse events, assessments of stool frequency and consistency, changes in abdominal pain, depression, and anxiety. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used GRADE criteria to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS:We identified eight randomized trials with a total of 300 adult participants for our analysis. We did not identify any trials in children. Four trials assessed thermal biofeedback. One trial assessed rectosigmoidal biofeedback. Two trials assessed heart rate variability biofeedback. Two trials assessed electrocutaneous biofeedback. Comparators were: no treatment (symptom monitoring group; three studies), attention control (pseudomeditation; two studies), relaxation control (one study), counseling (two studies), hypnotherapy (one study), standard therapy (one study), and sham biofeedback (one study). We judged all trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias. Global/Clinical improvement The clinical benefit of biofeedback plus standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone was uncertain (RR 4.20, 95% CI 1.40 to 12.58; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same study also compared biofeedback plus standard therapy to sham biofeedback plus standard therapy. The clinical benefit in the biofeedback group was uncertain (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.80; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of heart rate biofeedback compared to hypnotherapy was uncertain when measured with the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) (MD -58.80, 95% CI -109.11 to -8.49; 1 study, 61 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to counseling, the effect of heart rate biofeedback was unclear when measured with a composite symptom reduction score (MD 7.03, 95% CI -51.07 to 65.13; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated for clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.45; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of thermal biofeedback used in a multi-component psychological intervention (MCPI) compared to no treatment was uncertain when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 30.34, 95% CI 8.47 to 52.21; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to attention control, the effects of thermal biofeedback within an MCPI were unclear when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 4.02, 95% CI -21.41 to 29.45; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.69, 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life A single trial used overall quality of life as an outcome measure, and reported that both the biofeedback and cognitive therapy groups improved after treatment. The trial did not note any between-group differences, and did not report any outcome data. Adverse events Only one of the eight trials explicitly reported adverse events. This study reported no adverse events in either the biofeedback or cognitive therapy groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There is currently not enough evidence to assess whether biofeedback interventions are effective for controlling symptoms of IBS. Given the positive results reported in small trials to date, biofeedback deserves further study in people with IBS. Future research should include active control groups that use high provider-participant interaction, in an attempt to balance non-specific effects of interventions between groups, and report both commonly used outcome measures (e.g. IBS-SSS) and historical outcome measures (e.g. the composite primary symptom reduction (CPSR) score) to allow for meta-analysis with previous studies. Future studies should be explicit in their reporting of adverse events

Lessons from Outside and Within: Exploring Advancements in Methodology for Naturopathic Medicine Clinical Research

© 2019, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Introduction: Naturopathy is a mixture of both traditional and complementary medicine. It incorporates a broad set of health care practices that may or may not be traditional to that country or conventional medicine and are not fully integrated into the dominant health care system. Research required to evaluate or substantiate naturopathic medicine may not fall under the testing of randomized clinical trials, which opens up discussions on what is the best practice for research in naturopathic medicine. Discussion: Not only do advances in health research methodology offer important opportunities to progress naturopathic research, there are also areas where the unique characteristics of naturopathic philosophy and practice can impact other areas of health research. Some of the new advances in health research methodology involve whole-system research, pragmatic trials, template for intervention description and replication protocols for complex interventions, patient-centered care models, and the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool for designing pragmatic trials. Discussion and critique of these health-related methodologies shows that these research methods are more suited for the philosophy and treatment options that naturopathy is based on. Conclusions: Successful implementation of naturopathic research methodologies, and translation and dissemination of research will require a substantial paradigm shift in which naturopathic practitioners adopt a greater level of responsibility for developing an evidence base for naturopathic medicine

International prevalence of consultation with a naturopathic practitioner: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Naturopathy is a traditional medicine system informed by codified philosophies and principles, and an emphasis on non-pharmacologic therapeutic interventions. While naturopathy is practised by approximately 75 000-100 000 000 naturopathic practitioners in at least 98 countries, little is known about the international prevalence of history of consultation with a naturopathic practitioner. This study reports a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies describing the global prevalence of history of consultation with a naturopathic practitioner by the general population. SETTING: The included literature was identified through a systematic search of eight databases between September and October 2019, as well as the grey literature. PARTICIPANTS: Studies were included if they reported the prevalence rate of consultations with a naturopathic practitioner by the general population. INTERVENTIONS: Survey items needed to report consultations with a naturopathic practitioner as defined in the country where data was collected, and not combine naturopathic consultations with other health services or only report consulations for illness populations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures used for the analysis was consultations in the previous 12 months. Other prevalence timeframes were reported as secondary measures. METHODS: Meta-analysis of prevalence data was conducted using random effects models based on individual countries and WHO world regions. RESULTS: The literature search identified eight manuscripts summarising 14 studies reporting prevalence for inclusion in the review. All included studies had a low risk of bias. Meta-analysis of the included studies by world region found the 12-month prevalence of history of naturopathy consultations ranged from 1% in the Region of the Americas to 6% in the European and Western Pacific Regions. CONCLUSIONS: There are up to sixfold differences in the prevalence of naturopathy consults over 12 months between and within world regions, which may be driven by a range of policy, legislative and social factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020145529

Effects of a high-prebiotic diet versus probiotic supplements versus synbiotics on adult mental health : the "gut feelings" randomised controlled trial

Background: Preliminary evidence supports the use of dietary interventions and gut microbiota-targeted interventions such as probiotic or prebiotic supplementation for improving mental health. We report on the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effects of a high-prebiotic dietary intervention and probiotic supplements on mental health. Methods: “Gut Feelings” was an 8-week, 2 × 2 factorial RCT of 119 adults with moderate psychological distress and low prebiotic food intake. Treatment arms: (1) probiotic supplement and diet-as-usual (probiotic group); (2) high-prebiotic diet and placebo supplement (prebiotic diet group); (3) probiotic supplement and high-prebiotic diet (synbiotic group); and (4) placebo supplement and diet-as-usual (placebo group). The primary outcome was assessment of total mood disturbance (TMD; Profile of Mood States Short Form) from baseline to 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, depression, stress, sleep, and wellbeing measures. Results: A modified intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed effects models revealed that the prebiotic diet reduced TMD relative to placebo at 8 weeks [Cohen’s d = −0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.18, −0.03; p = 0.039]. There was no evidence of symptom improvement from the probiotic (d = −0.19, 95% CI = −0.75, 0.38; p = 0.51) or synbiotic treatments (d = −0.03, 95% CI = −0.59, 0.53; p = 0.92). Improved anxiety, stress, and sleep were noted in response to the prebiotic diet while the probiotic tentatively improved wellbeing, relative to placebo. No benefit was found in response to the synbiotic intervention. All treatments were well tolerated with few adverse events. Conclusion: A high-prebiotic dietary intervention may improve mood, anxiety, stress, and sleep in adults with moderate psychological distress and low prebiotic intake. A synbiotic combination of high-prebiotic diet and probiotic supplement does not appear to have a beneficial effect on mental health outcomes, though further evidence is required. Results are limited by the relatively small sample size

Mediterranean diet or extended fasting's influence on changing the intestinal microflora, immunoglobulin A secretion and clinical outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia: an observational study

BACKGROUND: Alterations in the intestinal bacterial flora are believed to be contributing factors to many chronic inflammatory and degenerative diseases including rheumatic diseases. While microbiological fecal culture analysis is now increasingly used, little is known about the relationship of changes in intestinal flora, dietary patterns and clinical outcome in specific diseases. To clarify the role of microbiological culture analysis we aimed to evaluate whether in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or fibromyalgia (FM) a Mediterranean diet or an 8-day fasting period are associated with changes in fecal flora and whether changes in fecal flora are associated with clinical outcome. METHODS: During a two-months-period 51 consecutive patients from an Integrative Medicine hospital department with an established diagnosis of RA (n = 16) or FM (n = 35) were included in the study. According to predefined clinical criteria and the subjects' choice the patients received a mostly vegetarian Mediterranean diet (n = 21; mean age 50.9 +/-13.3 y) or participated in an intermittent modified 8-day fasting therapy (n = 30; mean age 53.7 +/- 9.4 y). Quantitative aerob and anaerob bacterial flora, stool pH and concentrations of secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) were analysed from stool samples at the beginning, at the end of the 2-week hospital stay and at a 3-months follow-up. Clinical outcome was assessed with the DAS 28 for RA patients and with a disease severity rating scale in FM patients. RESULTS: We found no significant changes in the fecal bacterial counts following the two dietary interventions within and between groups, nor were significant differences found in the analysis of sIgA and stool ph. Clinical improvement at the end of the hospital stay tended to be greater in fasting vs. non-fasting patients with RA (p = 0.09). Clinical outcome was not related to alterations in the intestinal flora. CONCLUSION: Neither Mediterranean diet nor fasting treatments affect the microbiologically assessed intestinal flora and sIgA levels in patients with RA and FM. The impact of dietary interventions on the human intestinal flora and the role of the fecal flora in rheumatic diseases have to be clarified with newer molecular analysis techniques. The potential benefit of fasting treatment in RA and FM should be further tested in randomised trials

A Meta-Analysis of Probiotic Efficacy for Gastrointestinal Diseases

Background: Meta-analyses on the effects of probiotics on specific gastrointestinal diseases have generally shown positive effects on disease prevention and treatment; however, the relative efficacy of probiotic use for treatment and prevention across different gastrointestinal diseases, with differing etiology and mechanisms of action, has not been addressed. Methods/Principal Findings: We included randomized controlled trials in humans that used a specified probiotic in the treatment or prevention of Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, Traveler’s Diarrhea, or Necrotizing Enterocolitis. Random effects models were used to evaluate efficacy as pooled relative risks across the eight diseases as well as across probiotic species, single vs. multiple species, patient ages, dosages, and length of treatment. Probiotics had a positive significant effect across all eight gastrointestinal diseases with a relative risk of 0.58 (95 % (CI) 0.51–0.65). Six of the eight diseases: Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, and Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, showed positive significant effects. Traveler’s Diarrhea and Necrotizing Enterocolitis did not show significant effects of probiotcs. Of the 11 species and species mixtures, all showed positive significant effects except for Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Bifidobacterium infantis. Across all diseases and probiotic species, positive significant effects of probiotics were observed for all age groups, single vs. multiple species, and treatment lengths

The Causes of Intestinal Dysbiosis: A Review

Alterations in the bowel flora and its activities are now believed to be contributing factors to many chronic and degenerative diseases. Irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis have all been linked to alterations in the intestinal microflora. The intestinal dysbiosis hypothesis suggests a number of factors associated with modern Western living have a detrimental impact on the microflora of the gastrointestinal tract. Factors such as antibiotics, psychological and physical stress, and certain dietary components have been found to contribute to intestinal dysbiosis. If these causes can be eliminated or at least attenuated then treatments aimed at manipulating the microflora may be more successful