A systematic review of valerian as a sleep aid: Safe but not effective

Taibi, Diana M.; Landis, Clark R.; Petry, Heidi; Vitiello, Michael V.

doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2007.03.002

Cited by 135 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The adverse reactions most frequently observed with this plant in this study, i.e. somnolence, drowsiness, and gastrointestinal symptoms, are also described in the literature (Taibi, 2007) Decne., Citrus aurantium L., Garcinia cambogia (Gaertn.) Desr.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Adverse Effects of Plant Food Supplements and Plants Consumed as Food: Results from the Poisons Centres-Based PlantLIBRA Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant food supplements (PFS) are products of increasing popularity and wide-spread distribution. Nevertheless, information about their risks is limited. To fill this gap, a poisons centres-based study was performed as part of the EU project PlantLIBRA. Multicentre retrospective review of data from selected European and Brazilian poisons centres, involving human cases of adverse effects due to plants consumed as food or as ingredients of food supplements recorded between 2006 and 2010. Ten poisons centres provided a total of 75 cases. In 57 cases (76%) a PFS was involved; in 18 (24%) a plant was ingested as food. The 10 most frequently reported plants were Valeriana officinalis, Camellia sinensis, Paullinia cupana, Melissa officinalis, Passiflora incarnata, Mentha piperita, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Ilex paraguariensis, Panax ginseng, and Citrus aurantium. The most frequently observed clinical effects were neurotoxicity and gastro-intestinal symptoms. Most cases showed a benign clinical course; however, five cases were severe. PFS-related adverse effects seem to be relatively infrequent issues for poisons centres. Most cases showed mild symptoms. Nevertheless, the occurrence of some severe adverse effects and the increasing popularity of PFS require continuous active surveillance, and further research is warranted. Most cases showed a benign clinical course; however, five cases were severe. Conclusions:PFS-related adverse effects seem to be relatively infrequent issues for poisons centres. Most cases showed mild symptoms. Nevertheless, the occurrence of some severe adverse effects and the increasing popularity of PFS require continuous active surveillance, and further research is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Adverse Effects of Plant Food Supplements and Plants Consumed as Food: Results from the Poisons Centres-Based PlantLIBRA Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Altogether, this review could not identify studies showing a clinically relevant interaction effect of valerian. This confirms pharmacovigilance reviews of herbal medicinal products, which do not mention valerian at all [58][59][60] or claim valerian as safe [16,[27][28][29][30][31]. Block et al [5] specifically pointed out that valerian is safe and efficient in patients undergoing cancer therapy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…While the side effect profile therefore is benign, a potential for adverse drug interactions has been claimed by some reviews [26], while other reviews did not [18,[27][28][29][30][31][32], so that a reevaluation of the existing evidence is necessary.…”

Section: Efficacy and Safety Of Valerian Extractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valerian: No evidence for Clinically Relevant interactions

Kelber¹,

Nieber²,

Kraft³

2012

Planta Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent popular publications as well as in widely used information websites directed to cancer patients, valerian is claimed to have a potential of adverse interactions with anticancer drugs. This questions its use as a safe replacement for, for example, benzodiazepines. A review on the interaction potential of preparations from valerian root (Valeriana officinalis L. root) was therefore conducted. A data base search and search in a clinical drug interaction data base were conducted. Thereafter, a systematic assessment of publications was performed. Seven in vitro studies on six CYP 450 isoenzymes, on p-glycoprotein, and on two UGT isoenzymes were identified. However, the methodological assessment of these studies did not support their suitability for the prediction of clinically relevant interactions. In addition, clinical studies on various valerian preparations did not reveal any relevant interaction potential concerning CYP 1A2, 2D6, 2E1, and 3A4. Available animal and human pharmacodynamic studies did not verify any interaction potential. The interaction potential of valerian preparations therefore seems to be low and thereby without clinical relevance. We conclude that there is no specific evidence questioning their safety, also in cancer patients.

show abstract

“…26 Thirty-one SRs concluded that the HM in question was safe. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][23][24][25][26]29,31,32,35,38,39,[42][43][44][45]47,50,53,55,[57][58][59][60] Fifteen SRs reported moderately severe AEs, 12,22,27,28,30,36,40,41,46,48,49,51,52,54,56 and four SRs concluded that the HM in question was not safe (see Supplemental Tables S1 and S2). 33,34,37,…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forty-two SRs failed to mention conflict of interest of the authors. [13][14][15][16][17][18]22,23,[25][26][27][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] Thirty-two SRs made no mention of any source of funding. [13][14][15][16][17]22,23,27,30,[34]…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%