The C.A.M. Report
Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Fair, Balanced, and to the Point
  • About this web log

    This blog is intended as an objective and dispassionate source of information on the latest CAM research. Since my background is in pharmacy and allopathic medicine, I view all CAM as advancing through the development pipeline to eventually become integrated into mainstream medical practice. Some will succeed while others fail. But all are treated fairly here.

  • About the author

    John Russo, Jr., PharmD, is president of The MedCom Resource, Inc. Previously, he was senior vice president of medical communications at www.Vicus.com, a complementary and alternative medicine website.

  • Common sense considerations

    The material on this weblog is for informational purposes. It is not medical advice or counsel. Be smart, consult your health professional before using CAM.

  • Support this site

    If you found the information here helpful, please consider supporting this site.If you found the information here helpful, please consider supporting this site.

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    CAERS reports on supplement safety

    The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) represents one of the few existing surveillance mechanisms.

    Here’s a list of the 6 most frequently used and how they rate for reports of adverse events.

    First, the details.

    • CAERS data from 1999 to 2003 involving adverse effects for the 6 most frequently used supplements were reviewed.
      • Echinacea
      • Garlic
      • Ginkgo biloba
      • Ginseng
      • Peppermint
      • St. John’s wort

    And, the results.

    • Reports involving ginseng were most frequent.
    • St. John’s wort had the least frequently reported adverse events.
    • Gastrointestinal and neurologic problems were the most common adverse events for single-ingredient supplements.

    The bottom line?
    The abstract and brief press report from FunctionalIngredients are disappointing in what they report.

    The authors concluded that the “number of reports is relatively small, validation is incomplete, and some inconsistencies within reports were found.”

    Based on this, CAERS is “potentially as effective as other passive surveillance methods.” However, this system may “under-represent adverse events associated with supplements.”

    5/28/08 20:09 JR

    Leave a Comment

    You must be logged in to post a comment.