Annabella Vitalone

Phytoestrogens (PEs) are plant-based compounds that can interact with estrogen receptors and are mainly used to treat menopausal complaints. However, the safety of products with assumed phytoestrogenic activity is not fully understood. This study aimed to identify plant species with assumed phytoestrogenic activity, review existing literature on their use and safety, and critically evaluate adverse reaction (AR) reports of single-herb, multi-herb, and mixed-multiple products, as submitted to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb and to VigiBase of the World Health Organization (WHO). In the Lareb database, the most commonly reported plant species to cause ARs (total of 67 reports) were Actaea racemosa L. (black cohosh) (47.8%), Humulus lupulus L. (hops) (32.8%), and Glycine max (L.) Merr. (soybean) (22.4%). In the VigiBase database (total of 21,944 reports), the top three consisted of Glycine max (L.) Merr. (71.4%), Actaea racemosa L. (11.6%), and Vitex agnus-castus L. (chaste tree) (6.4%). In the scoping review (total of 73 articles), Actaea racemosa L. (30.1%), Glycine max (L.) Merr. (28.8%), and Trifolium pratense L. (13.7%) were the most frequently mentioned plant species. ARs were most frequently reported in the system organ classes “gastrointestinal disorders”, “skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders”, “reproductive system and breast disorders”, and “general disorders and administration site conditions”. Furthermore, from the scoping review, it appeared that the use of products with assumed phytoestrogenic activity was associated with postmenopausal bleeding. It was concluded that, while the potential benefits of products with assumed phytoestrogenic activity have been extensively pursued, the potential occurrence of ARs after using these products is less well understood. This study highlights the need for further investigation and careful monitoring of these products to better understand their effects and ensure the safety and well-being of individuals using them.

Herbal dietary supplements (HDS) used for dyslipidemia represent a category of concern in Italy for suspected adverse reactions (ARs). However, we cannot estimate their safety, as we do not know their commercial profile. Sales data of HDS, and particularly, those used for dyslipidemia, were monitored for 2 years in two pharmacies of Rome. Meanwhile, spontaneous reports of suspected ARs potentially related to dyslipidemia supplements were collected by the Italian Phytovigilance System. The 50% of the total dietary supplements are herbal‐derived; the 9% of HDS are recommended for dyslipidemia. From our data, 113 different brands have claims for improving lipids profile and 91% of them are multiingredient preparations. Fifteen spontaneous reports of suspected ARs concerned HDS used, for dyslipidemia. The most frequent ARs were joint, abdominal, and muscles pain; vomiting; erythema and hematological disorders; nausea; and rhabdomyolysis. Our findings point out the limited compliance of commercial dyslipidemia‐HDS and scientific research about their intrinsic safety. A wide range of ingredients could not support the risk/benefit profile of the supplement. The variable compositions of HDS do not assure the safety, as they do not support the reproducibility of their pharmacological activities. This study could contribute to optimize consumer guidance about what they purchase and consume.