Analysis of patient reported outcomes on the therapeutic effectiveness of herbal medicines in gynecological ailments

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective: Aim of the study was to expand knowledge regarding the therapeutic efficacy and medication intake habits of Herbal Medicines (HMs) for the treatment of menstrual and menopausal complaints as well as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs). Materials and methods: A data sample (n=1658) was taken from the pharmaco-epidemiological database PhytoVIS consisting of outcomes reported by women taking HMs to treat their gynecological complaints. After excluding 294 cases, we applied descriptive statistical methods and evaluated the therapeutic benefit, adverse effects of HMs as well as treatment habits. Results: In our sample, the majority of women (62%) suffered from uUTIs (n=840), followed by 22% with menopausal (n=301) and 16% with menstrual complaints (n=222). On a 6-level Likert-scale (0=no complaints, 5=strongest complaints), around a third (31.5%) rated their symptoms as low in a range between 0 and 2, while two third (68.5%) perceived them as more severe (3-5). With regard to treatment habits most women with menstrual or menopausal ailments preferred to take HMs for a period of 1 month or longer, while those affected by uUTIs reduced the application to the length of their symptoms. Most patients evaluated the therapeutic benefit of HMs for the treatment of gynecological complaints as very positive without perceiving significant adverse effects. Conclusion: Our analysis of real-world data reveals an excellent benefit-risk ratio of HMs for the treatment of gynecological complaints under everyday conditions. The results are scientifically valuable and an important add-on to clinical studies. This will help to implement HMs into novel therapeutic strategies. Publication History Article published online: 01 October 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.