Karen W. Martin

Background and aims: Many antiviral compounds presently in clinical use have a narrow spectrum of activity, limited therapeutic usefulness and variable toxicity. There is also an emerging problem of resistant viral strains. This study was undertaken to examine the published literature on herbs and plants with antiviral activity, their laboratory evaluation in vitro and in vivo, and evidence of human clinical efficacy. Methods: Independent literature searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CISCOM, AMED and Cochrane Library for information on plants and herbs with antiviral activity. There was no restriction on the language of publication. Data from clinical trials of single herb preparations used to treat uncomplicated viral infections were extracted in a standardized, predefined manner. Results: Many hundreds of herbal preparations with antiviral activity were identified and the results of one search presented as an example. Yet extracts from only 11 species met the inclusion criteria of this review and have been tested in clinical trials. They have been used in a total of 33 randomized, and a further eight non-randomized, clinical trials. Fourteen of these trials described the use of Phyllanthus spp. for treatment of hepatitis B, seven reporting positive and seven reporting negative results. The other 10 herbal medicines had each been tested in between one and nine clinical trials. Only four of these 26 trials reported no benefit from the herbal product. Conclusions: Though most of the clinical trials located reported some benefits from use of antiviral herbal medicines, negative trials may not be published at all. There remains a need for larger, stringently designed, randomized clinical trials to provide conclusive evidence of their efficacy.

Objectives: Many hundreds of plant extracts have been tested for in vitro antibacterial activity. This review is a critical evaluation of controlled clinical trials of herbal medicines with antibacterial activity. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched for controlled clinical trials of antibacterial herbal medicines. Data were extracted and validated in a standardized fashion, according to predefined criteria, by two independent reviewers. Results: Seven clinical trials met our inclusion criteria. Four of these studies were randomized. Three trials of garlic and cinnamon treatments for Helicobacter pylori infections reported no significant effect. Bacterial infections of skin were treated in four trials. Positive results were reported for an ointment containing tea leaf extract in impetigo contagiosa infections. Two trials of tea tree oil preparations used for acne and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and one trial of Ocimum gratissimum oil for acne, reported results equivalent to conventional treatments. Conclusions: Few controlled clinical trials have been published and most are methodologically weak. The clinical efficacy of none of the herbal medicines has so far been demonstrated beyond doubt. This area seems to merit further study through rigorous clinical trials.