BackgroundEvidence is lacking for multi-ingredient herbal supplements claiming therapeutic effect in sexual dysfunction in men. We examined the safety and efficacy of VigRX Plus (VXP) – a proprietary polyherbal preparation for improving male sexual function, in a double blind, randomized placebo-controlled, parallel groups, multi-centre study.Methods78 men aged 25–50 years of age; suffering from mild to moderate erectile dysfunction (ED), participated in this study. Subjects were randomized to receive VXP or placebo at a dose of two capsules twice daily for 12 weeks. The international index of erectile function (IIEF) was the primary outcome measure of efficacy. Other efficacy measures were: Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), Serum testosterone, Semen analysis, Investigator’s Global assessment and Subjects’ opinion.ResultsIn subjects receiving VXP, the IIEF-Erectile Function (EF) scores improved significantly as compared to placebo. After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean (sd) IIEF-EF score at baseline increased from 16.08 (2.87) to 25.08 (4.56) in the VXP group versus 15.86 (3.24) to 16.47 (4.25) in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Similar results were observed in each of the remaining four domains of the IIEF (orgasmic function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction).There was a significant difference for VXP versus placebo comparison of mean (sd) EDITS scores of patients: 82.31(20.23) vs 36.78(22.53) and partners :(82.75(9.8) vs 18.50(9.44);P < 0.001. Thirty-five out of 39 (90%) subjects from the VXP group and one (3%) from the placebo group wished to continue with the treatment they received. Investigator’s global assessment rated VXP therapy as very good to excellent in more than 50% patients and placebo therapy as fair to good in about 25% of patients. Incidence of side effects and subject’s rating for tolerability of treatment was similar in both groups.ConclusionsVigRX Plus was well tolerated and more effective than placebo in improving sexual function in men.Trial RegistrationClinical Trial Registry India, CTRI/2009/091/000099, 31-03-2009

Background: Existing therapeutic measures for swelling, aching and discomfort in the lower limbs, which include compression stockings and leg elevation, are difficult to use and inconvenient. Patch It ® , a proprietary herbomineral patch is an easy-to-use alternative therapy. This trial was conducted to compare it's efficacy against that of a placebo in swollen and aching lower legs and feet. Methods: This randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind, crossover, sequential trial was conducted in the private clinics of physicians. A total of 100 patients (24 men and 76 women), aged 25 to 60 years, with recurring swelling in the feet and (optionally) up to two more related complaints, having an average visual analog score (VAS) of at least 60 (scale 0-100) for each complaint were recruited into the study. Patches (active or placebo) were applied to both soles overnight for 8 weeks: 4 consecutive weeks each with active or placebo in randomized sequence. Outcome measures included the average VAS score (baseline to week 4, and week 5 to week 8), preference for either patch (difference of .5 mm in average VAS score reduction), ankle figureof-eight measures, investigator's global assessment (good, fair, poor), patient's willingness to continue using the patch after the trial (yes, no), and adverse events. Results: Out of 100 patients, 86 completed the trial, while ten were excluded for noncompliance, three withdrew, and one was lost to follow-up. The active placebo boundary of the sequential chart was crossed when 82 patients completed the trial. Active patch was also superior to placebo patch by mean reductions in average VAS scores (13.14 versus 9.6, P = 0.02), mean reduction in figure-of-eight ankle measurements (1.21 cm versus 0.79 cm, P = 0.003), investigator's global assessment (P , 0.01), and by proportion of patients willing to continue using the patch after the trial (P , 0.01). Ten percent of patients experienced localized itching with each patch, but this did not require interruption of treatment. Conclusion: Patch It had greater efficacy than the placebo in alleviating recurring swelling and aching in the legs and feet, and is well tolerated.