[MPWG] BlackCohosh

McCoy, Joe-Ann joemccoy at iastate.edu
Thu Dec 21 12:27:53 CST 2006


FYI:

In response to the previous comment..........I'm attaching the file from the Annals of Internal Medicine journal website explaining plant material used for the black cohosh study in PDF format.  I'm also inserting two comments which were sent yesterday and posted on the journals website.  

 

 

Katherine M. Newton, Susan D. Reed, Andrea Z. LaCroix, Louis C. Grothaus, Kelly Ehrlich, and Jane Guiltinan Treatment of Vasomotor Symptoms of Menopause with Black Cohosh, Multibotanicals, Soy, Hormone Therapy, or Placebo: A Randomized Trial Ann Intern Med, Dec 2006; 145: 869 - 879.

 

Comments / Interpretation 

 

1.) Jonathan P. Krueger

Re: why between-subjects design?

 

 Is there some reason a within-subjects design was not used? It would appear to be suited to the phenomenon, which is reversible and observable within months. Why not have all subjects experience all conditions, say two months per condition, ordered at random for each subject?The power would be better, the results cleaner, and we'd be able to answer a question this study cannot: do some subjects respond reliably, even if the overall response is weak? 

     

2.) Baoming Ge,

MD, MClSc

China Clinical Trials Coordination Center Send rapid response to journal: 

Re: Interpretation of the "negative" result

 

 Dear Editors 

 

I read the paper with interest about the excellent work completed by Dr. Newton and her colleagues. We have just finished a pilot study of a black cohosh ethanol abstract in Beijing and are on the track of a national wide multi-centered RCT. The double-blinded pilot study enrolled 120 Chinese women with climacteric symptoms who were stratified into perimenopausal and postmenopausal arms, according to the standard of STRAW. Each arm was divided into 3 interventional groups, i.e. black cohosh (BC) low dose (1# bid), BC high dose (1# tid) and placebo, with 20 cases in each group. The primary outcome was Kupperman Index (KI) evaluated before the study and at the 2 and 4 weeks after the treatment. We also used menopause rating scale (MRS) as secondary outcome when it was first introduced in China and validified by this study. Although some of the results of this pilot study were "negative" (even there existed difference between BC and placebo groups), similar as shown in Dr. Newton et al's study, we were very careful to accept the null hypothesis, which we believed that the sample size we calculated before the study was not powerful enough to detect the difference. 

 

I've noticed in Dr. Newton et al's study that they calculated the sample size based on an assumption that the effect of herbs was halfway of HRT. It is not surprised to see that the black cohosh group failed to show a "P<0.05" when it didn't reach the standard effect size even though the 95% CIs shifted to the left side of zero and inferred a small sample size. Seems Dr. Altman's words ring again beside our ears absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. I have also noticed that Dr. Newton and her colleagues also admitted that their study result didn't rule out the differences between treatment groups smaller than 1.5 vasomotor symptoms per day. 

 

We have never used Wiklund Vasomotor Symptom Subscale in China. But we found an interesting result in our study when we used both KI and MRS as outcomes, of which the KI seemed more "sensitive" to detect the treatment effect than MRS. We postulated that it was possible due the "weight" factor given to the score of vasomotor symptoms in KI which might "amplify" the effect comparing scored by MRS. It is interesting to know if any other researchers find similar phenomena. 

 

Our study showed that the BC treatment brought more adverse events than placebo to the participants, mainly headaches. It was also shown in many other studies on BC. I was surprised to find that BC treatment had similar safety profile as placebo in Dr. Newton et al's study. We used a pharmaceutical product with major components specified, provided by a local manufacturer. Dr. Newton didn't mention whether the components contained in the BC product were standardized. 

 

We appreciate that Dr. Newton or any other medical professionals with experience of using BC may share information with us. 

 

Sincerely Yours 

 

Dr. Baoming Ge 

 

Reference 

 

Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995;311:485 

 

 

Conflict of Interest:

Dr. Ge is the medical director of a CRO, located in Beijing, China.

 

     

 

Joe-Ann McCoy, Ph.D.

USDA-ARS Medicinal Plant Curator

North Central Regional Plant Introduction Station

G212 Agronomy Hall

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa 50011-1170

USA

phone: 515-294-2297

fax: 515-294-1903

 

 

 

 

 

Joe-Ann McCoy, Ph.D.

USDA-ARS Medicinal Plant Curator

North Central Regional Plant Introduction Station

G212 Agronomy Hall

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa 50011-1170

USA

phone: 515-294-2297

fax: 515-294-1903

 

________________________________

From: mpwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:mpwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Applequist
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:03 AM
To: mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [MPWG] A positive black cohosh study 12/7/2006 - BlackCohosh(Actaea racemosa,Cimicifuga racemosa) Behaves as a Mixed Competitive Ligand andPartialAgonist at the Human Opiate Receptor

 

Trish,

 

I agree that the UIC team is more trustworthy, but their study is in vitro and results of in vitro studies do not always translate into in vivo results (look at how many phony "herb-drug interaction" alarms have been raised through the use of petri-dish studies).  However, there's further reason to question the results of the human trial here.  Firstly, there are a LOT of studies showing that black cohosh reduces hot flashes or total menopausal symptoms; a clear majority of trials have been positive.  Some people have a nasty habit of pretending that if 15 European studies are positive and one American study is negative, the question has been completely resolved -- with a negative answer!  The mainstream media invariably fall in line with this spin.  When the researchers themselves push this outlook, as appears to be the case here, this demonstrates bias that warrants going over their study with a fine-tooth comb.

 

Firstly, this "Wiklund Menopause Symptom" scale is not commonly used.  Many studies of black cohosh have used the Kupperman Index, which is also used for tests of pharmaceutical drugs.  If you look these two things up in PubMed, you will find that there are several studies of menopause with Wiklund as one of the authors (mostly using scales with different names, according to the abstracts); the ONLY study that has Wiklund in the abstract but not the authors' list is this study.  The only Googled references to "Wiklund Menopause Symptom," in quotes, refer to this study.  Compare that to "Kupperman Index" with respectively 143 PubMed-listed scientific papers and almost 10,000 Google hits.  Suppose that you do not really care to find an effect -- it would certainly help to use a poorly validated rating scale that might be less sensitive than the usual scales, or might give higher "placebo effect" answers.

 

I don't have access to the article, but someone has summarized a few of the results online.  At three months, frequency of vasomotor symptoms declined 35% with black cohosh, 15% with multibotanical, 30% with multibotanical plus soy, 21% with placebo, and 88% with hormone therapy.  We are told that the difference between "herbal supplements" (which?) and placebo was 0.6 hot flashes per day.  A "global test for herbs and placebo" gave P=.10.  Other measures showed trends toward the herbs but were farther from being significant.  The media version is that everything was the same except that the multibotanical plus soy at 12 months was significantly worse than placebo.  Now, P=.10 does not show that the above superiority of herbs over placebo is real, but it certainly doesn't prove that there is no effect either!  With a larger sample size, the same effect might have been significant at P=.05.  At least, the commentary has been misleading.    

 

Also, someone with access to the paper might look into material sourcing and quality.  Was a fingerprint provided?  Was the source provided?  Did they show that levels of suspected active compounds were adequate?  Using crummy material (as in the recent highly touted Echinacea angustifolia study, with no detectable echinacoside, and 30% of the recommended dose on top of that) is a great way to reduce the effect size.  I'm not implying that they would deliberately go out and look for lousy material, but if you are operating under the belief that no herbal product will (or should) be effective, you don't put much effort into ensuring product quality either.  This study was funded before the new NCCAM guidelines required researchers to demonstrate product composition.

 

Wendy

	 

	
________________________________


	From: mpwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:mpwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Trish Flaster
	Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:13 AM
	To: McCoy, Joe-Ann
	Cc: mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org
	Subject: Re: [MPWG] A positive black cohosh study 12/7/2006 - Black Cohosh(Actaea racemosa,Cimicifuga racemosa) Behaves as a Mixed Competitive Ligand andPartial Agonist at the Human Opiate Receptor

	It is a pleasure that you sent this as this scientific team spent years looking at all the species of cohosh and other plants to understanding the mechanism activity of black cohosh. I trust this work a lot more than others. 

	 

	Trish 

	On Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 07:29 AM, McCoy, Joe-Ann wrote: 

		 

		FYI: A positive black cohosh study which came out 2 weeks ago but didn't receive the press' attention. Just to even out the uncertainty......... 

		 

		http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2006/54/i26/abs/jf062808u.html 

		 

		J. Agric. Food Chem., 54 (26), 9852 -9857, 2006. 10.1021/jf062808u S0021-8561(06)02808-1 

		December 7, 2006 

		 

		Copyright © 2006 American Chemical Society 

		 

		Black Cohosh (Actaea racemosa, Cimicifuga racemosa) Behaves as a Mixed Competitive Ligand and Partial Agonist at the Human Opiate Receptor 

		 

		Mee-Ra Rhyu,# Jian Lu, Donna E. Webster, Daniel S. Fabricant, Norman R. Farnsworth, and Z. Jim Wang* 

		 

		Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, UIC/NIH Center for Botanical Dietary Supplements Research and Program for Collaborative Research in the Pharmaceutical Sciences, and Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois 60612 

		 

		Abstract: 

		 

		Black cohosh is a commonly used botanical dietary supplement for the treatment of climacteric complaints. Because the opiate system in the brain is intimately associated with mood, temperature, and sex hormonal levels, the activity of black cohosh extracts at the human opiate receptor (hMOR) expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells was investigated. The 100% methanol, 75% ethanol, and 40% 2-propanol extracts of black cohosh effectively displaced the specific binding of [3H]DAMGO to hMOR. Further studies of the clinically used ethanol extract indicated that black cohosh acted as a mixed competitive ligand, displacing 77 ± 4% [3H]DAMGO to hMOR (Ki = 62.9 g/mL). Using the [35S]GTPS assay, the action of black cohosh was found to be consistent with an agonist, with an EC50 of 68.8 ± 7.7 g/mL. These results demonstrate for the first time that black cohosh contains active principle(s) that activate hMOR, supporting its beneficial role in alleviating menopausal symptoms. 

		 

		Keywords: Black cohosh; menopause; hot flashes; opiate; botanical dietary supplement 

		 

		Received for review October 1, 2006. Accepted October 24, 2006. This publication was funded by the following grants: AT003476 from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS); AT000155 jointly provided to the UIC/NIH Center for Botanical Dietary Supplements Research by the ODS, the NCCAM, the Office for Research on Women's Health, and the National Institute for General Medical Sciences; and DA005050 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. D.E.W. is supported by an NIH predoctoral fellowship (F31AT002669). J.L. is a University Fellow. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCCAM, NIDA, or the National Institutes of Health. 

		 

		Joe-Ann McCoy, Ph.D. 

		USDA-ARS Medicinal Plant Curator 

		North Central Regional Plant Introduction Station 

		G212 Agronomy Hall 

		Iowa State University 

		Ames, Iowa 50011-1170 

		USA 

		phone: 515-294-2297 

		fax: 515-294-1903 

		 

		_______________________________________________ 

		PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group mailing list 

		MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org 

		http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org 

		 

		To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. 

		 

		Disclaimer 

		Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare information that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do not reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance. 

		 

	Trish Flaster 

	Executive Director 

	Botanical Liaisons, LLC 

	1180 Crestmoor Drive 

	Boulder, CO 80303 

	303-494-1555, 303-494-2555 fax 

	www.botanicalliaisons.com 

	Authenticated voucher specimens, a pressed plant reference tool, accompanied by the economically valuable dried plant part that is characterized by TLC or microscopy. See a listing on the website or make special requests 

	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20061221/1c78e159/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AnnIntMed12-20-2006CohoshSource.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 54941 bytes
Desc: AnnIntMed12-20-2006CohoshSource.pdf
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20061221/1c78e159/attachment.obj>


More information about the MPWG mailing list