Search

Natural health products are promoted to the public as equally or more effective and less toxic than conventional drugs. However, some 'natural' medicines are known to have adverse effects. From April 2002 to August 2007, 18 suspected adverse reactions associated with propolis-containing products were reported to the national surveillance system of natural health products, coordinated by the Italian National Health Institute. Sixteen reports concerned allergic reactions (with dermatological or respiratory symptoms), while two concerned the digestive tract. Some of the reactions were serious: six patients were admitted to hospital or visited an emergency department and in two of these a life-threatening event was reported. In seven patients (four of whom were children), an allergic predisposition was indicated. Propolis, a resinous substance collected by honeybees from the buds of living plants, has been used for several purposes (dermatitis, laryngitis, oral ulcers) because of its wide range of suggested activities (antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and chemopreventive actions). However, propolis is also a potent sensitizer and should not be used in patients with an allergic predisposition, in particular an allergy to pollen. In Italy, products containing bee derivatives (bee pollen, royal jelly or propolis) are available to the public as food supplements. No label warning of possible adverse reactions is found on the packaging, although it is well known that atopic and asthmatic individuals may be at an increased risk of allergic reactions after using these products. The public and healthcare practitioners should be aware of the risk of allergic reactions to products derived from bees and a warning should be added to the packaging of these products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a major public health concern, with death as the ultimate adverse drug outcome. Despite the relevance of this, the frequency of fatal ADRs (FADRs) is to a large extent unknown. Although spontaneous reporting data cannot give an exact estimate of the magnitude of drug-related mortality, it may highlight the importance and large dimensions of this public health problem., Objective: To describe the types and pattern of reported FADRs by analysing data from the national spontaneous reporting system in Italy., Methods: The Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) runs a pharmacovigilance database where all the individual case safety reports (since January 2001) are stored. We selected and then analysed in detail all the case reports (to the end of December 2006) in which death was reported as the outcome. We included in the study only FADR case reports with a probable or possible causality assessment, according to the criteria established by the WHO. In line with the Italian reporting form, we divided FADR reports into two groups: (i) suspected ADRs that caused death; and (ii) suspected ADRs that contributed to death., Results: In the AIFA database 38 507 suspected ADR case reports were collected, of which 641 (1.66%) had a fatal outcome. We analysed 450 case reports (1.17% of total reports), 159 (35.33%) of them causing the patient's death and 291 (64.67%) contributing to death. The annual percentage of FADR reports followed a constant trend during the 6-year period. The majority of fatal reports (79%) were sent by hospital doctors. In total, 222 different drugs were suspected as causes of FADRs. 'Systemic anti-infective drugs' was the drug category associated with the highest percentage of FADRs (21.9%), followed by antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (18.8%), and then by nervous system drugs (14.8%). Other drug categories involved in the fatal case reports were antithrombotic agents, NSAIDs and contrast media., Conclusions: The drugs most frequently involved in FADRs were drugs of wide usage with a narrow therapeutic range or those that caused serious skin or systemic allergic reactions. Ceftriaxone, ticlopidine and nimesulide were associated with the highest number of fatal case reports; the related FADRs were already known and recognized for each of these drugs. We highlight some cases reflecting probable inappropriate drug use by Italian physicians. This suggests a need for continued clinical pharmacology training and that many FADRs might be preventable through better medical and prescribing practice.