St. John's Wort Study Misinterpreted Says Herbal Science Group

[Guest guest]

St. John’s Wort Study Misinterpreted Says Herbal Science Group

 

 

 

Austin, TX. (April 9, 2002).

 

 

 

The American public may be receiving misleading information about the

effectiveness of the popular herbal dietary supplement St. John’s wort, says the

nonprofit American Botanical Council. ABC and some of its scientific advisors

noted that a new clinical study being released to the media is being

misinterpreted.

 

 

 

The long-awaited government-sponsored study on the effectiveness of the popular

herb is being published this Wednesday, April 10 in the Journal of the American

Medical Association. The study, conducted by researchers at Duke University and

11 other medical centers in the U.S., concludes that neither St. John’s wort nor

the drug sertraline showed any measurable benefit in patients with more severe

forms of depression. Although the study was conducted in patients with moderate

to severe depression, the herb has been tested and used mainly in patients with

less severe forms of depression.

 

The study conducted from December 1998 to June 2000 included 340 moderate to

severely depressed patients that were randomly assigned to three groups. Over an

eight-week period, one group received a dose between 900–1500 milligrams of a

leading brand of St. John’s wort extract, one group took the antidepressant drug

sertraline (50–100 mg), popularly know by its trade name Zoloft , and the third

group took a placebo, a sugar or dummy pill. Patients who responded to treatment

continued to receive their assigned treatment for an additional 18 weeks.

Curiously, fewer of the patients in both the herb and the drug groups responded

to the treatments than did those in the placebo group.

 

According to Jerry Cott, Ph.D., former Chief of the Psychopharmacology Research

Program, at the National Institute of Mental Health, the NIH designed this trial

to include a standard anti-depression drug (sertraline) as “an active

comparator” to document the sensitivity of the trial, that is, the ability of

this trial to detect an actual treatment effect. “The fact that the sertraline

was not effective in the primary measures of depression demonstrates (according

to the NIH’s own design protocol) that this trial lacked assay sensitivity and

should not be considered a successful study.” Dr. Cott was involved in the

original design of the trial when he worked for the NIMH.

 

 

 

He added that “this study does not invalidate the use of SJW in clinical

depression. There are still many well-controlled trials supporting the use of

St. John’s wort in mild to moderate depression, and additional studies with more

appropriate patient populations are in progress.”

 

 

 

In Dr. Cott’s estimation, this study could be considered “neutral”, one that

simply fails to show effectiveness of either treatment rather than proving the

test drug doesn’t work. “This result is not uncommon in pharmaceutical

industry-sponsored studies, though normally they are not published. The study

simply lacked the sensitivity to detect a difference.” Dr. Cott is an expert on

the effects of herbs and conventional drugs on mental disorders, including

depression. He also formerly worked at the Food and Drug Administration where he

evaluated clinical studies on new antidepressant drugs. (More information

available at jerrycott.com.)

 

 

 

Dr. Steven Bratman, a physician-author in Fort Collins, Colorado agrees “The

conclusion of the study is taken too far. Both treatments have been found

effective in the majority of clinical trials. This study, while not supporting

the use of St. John’s wort, doesn't discredit it either.”

 

 

 

Dr. Bratman, co-author of the Natural Pharmacy: Clinical Evaluation of Medicinal

Herbs, explained the intricacies of the interpretation of clinical studies of

this type. “In many studies of antidepressants, perhaps as many as one-third,

the tested drug doesn't do any better than placebo. The cause is probably a

combination of the high placebo effect often seen in studies testing

antidepressants and the relative coarseness and subjectivity of the type of

rating scales that must be used to evaluate severity of depression.” Dr. Bratman

explained that these rating scales are by their very nature less precise than

biomedical tests, such as those that measure cholesterol levels. “In

consequence, it is quite easy for a truly effective anti-depressant, such as

sertraline, to fail to prove efficacy in a given double-blind,

placebo-controlled trial. The problem is not the treatment itself, but in the

difficulties of studying such treatments.”

 

 

 

Because this study included sertraline, a drug that previously has been shown

effective, the inescapable conclusion is that details of the patient group and

the methods by which the ratings were determined were such that this study could

not discern the effectiveness of a known effective treatment. This also applies

to St. John’s wort (which has also been shown effective in many studies) as it

does to sertraline.

 

 

 

Bratman took issue with the authors of the study when they used a secondary

outcome measure to conclude that sertraline was more effective than placebo and

therefore better than St. John’s wort. According to the standard rules of

interpreting clinical studies, one should take only the primary outcome measures

as meaningful, he explained. On those measures, neither sertraline nor St.

John’s wort was effective. Digging into secondary measures is widely accepted as

being inappropriate, he added.

 

 

 

Thus, when the authors conclude that St. John’s wort is ineffective for moderate

depression and shouldn't be used, noted Bratman, “it would be equally valid to

say that sertraline is ineffective for moderate depression, and shouldn't be

used,” he added. " However, we know that this is not the case; looking at the

body of published research as whole, both sertraline and St. John's wort are

effective. "

 

 

 

“Herbs should be tested according to a reasonable expectation of their

previously documented benefits,” said Mark Blumenthal, founder and executive

director of the nonprofit American Botanical Council. He referred to10 previous

studies on St. John’s wort extract where the herb preparation was compared

directly with pharmaceutical antidepressants for treatment of mild to moderate

depression. These studies indicated a comparable efficacy with St. John’s wort

and the conventional drugs.

 

 

 

He also noted, “In Germany many physicians use St. John’s wort as a first-line

remedy for mild to moderate depression; if it doesn’t work, then they can always

put the patient on more powerful, pharmaceutical anti-depressants.”

 

 

 

Blumenthal added, “It is important for the NIH to continue conducting clinical

trials on many popular herbal dietary supplements. This adds to the growing body

of scientific information on their safety and efficacy. This process is a

constructive contribution to the maturation of the herbal movement. At the same

time, however, it is equally important that the results of these studies are

accurately interpreted and communicated to the public. Unfortunately, it appears

that some aspects of this first NIH-funded study are not being properly

characterized.” He also noted that the full text of the study is not available

prior to this Wednesday, so it is not possible to adequately evaluate all the

details.

 

 

 

The study was funded with $4 million from the National Institutes of Health’s

National

 

Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It was the first clinical

trial established by the NIH to test the efficacy of herbal remedies. St. John’s

wort was chosen because at the time the study was designed and funded in 1996,

St. John’s wort had begun to significantly increase in popularity in the U.S.

This new awareness was based on media reports of a meta-analysis (statistical

review of clinical trials) of 23 European clinical trials that showed that St.

John’s wort was safe and effective in treating mild to moderate forms of

depression.

 

 

 

Last April, another U.S.-based multi-center clinical trial on St. John’s wort

also failed to show any activity for the herb, again in more severely depressed

patients. The placebo-controlled study was criticized for targeting patients

that were too chronically and severely depressed and thus not consistent with

the profile of patients normally included in clinical trials. It was also

criticized for not including an active control, like the drug sertraline (Zoloft

, produced by Pfizer, the funder of the study), to determine the level of

response by the patients. Both trials used the leading German St. John’s wort

extract (known in Germany as Jarsin 300, made by Lichwter Pharma of Berlin, and

sold in the U.S. as Kira by Lichtwer Pharma USA).

 

 

 

St. John’s wort, also known by its scientific name Hypericum perforatum, is a

traditional European herb that has drawn significant attention for its ability

to help elevate mood in mild or moderately depressed people. At least 22

controlled clinical trials have been published in European medical journals

suggesting that St. John’s wort extract is a safe and effective remedy for mild

to moderate depression. An estimated 131 million doses of St. John’s wort were

prescribed by psychiatrists in Germany in 1999, according to German sources.

 

 

 

The American Botanical Council is the nation's leading non-profit organization

addressing research and educational issues regarding herbs and medicinal plants.

The 13-year-old organization occupies a 2.5 acre site in Austin, Texas where it

publishes HerbalGram, a peer-reviewed journal on herbal medicine, and will

publish a forthcoming book and continuing education course for healthcare

professionals, The ABC Clinical Guide to Herbs, containing an extensive

monograph on the safety and efficacy of St. John’s wort. Information contact:

ABC at P.O. Box 144345, Austin, TX 78714-4345, ph: 512-926-4900, fax:

512-926-2345. Website: (St John’s Wort) in major depressive disorder: A

randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;287:1807-1814.

 

 

The previous U.S. study referred to in this release that found no response by

St. John’s wort is Shelton RC et al. Effectiveness of St John's Wort in major

depression: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;285(15):1978-1986.

A comprehensive monograph on St. John’s wort from ABC’s forthcoming book The ABC

Clinical Guide to Herbs, including summaries of 23 clinical trials and 122

references, can be viewed on the ABC website,

 

http://www.herbalgram.org

 

 

 

The complete " Whole Body " Health line consists of the " AIM GARDEN TRIO "

Ask About Health Professional Support Series: AIM Barleygreen

 

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/AIM.html