Gender data from the PhytoVIS study, a pharmacoepidemiological NIS in overall 24,056 patients

Background Pharmacoepidemiological research can be an important source of information on the use of phytomedicines in the broad range of patients attending the pharmacy and general practitioners. This applies especially to gender-related data on the use of phytomedicines, where clinical study data often leave questions open [1].

Purpose To address this gap, data from the PhytoVIS study, a largest pharmacoepidemiological study on the use of phytomedicines [2], were evaluated with respect to gender.

Methods The data in the PhytoVIS have been captured in pharmacies and in doctor´s practices, in compliance to the ENCePP Code of Conduct [3]. When screening it for gender data, information on indications, treatments and tolerability was evaluated.

Results Of the 24,056 data sets in the data base, 16,443 were from women and 7,613 from men. 75.0 % resp. 77.5 % of the women resp. men used the medicines for acute complaints, 15.6 % resp. 14.1 % for chronic complaints and 7.1 % resp. 6.1 % as a preventive measure. The efficacy of the therapy was rated very good in 45.9 % resp. 42.5 % of the women resp. men, good to moderate in 38.2 % resp. 41.5 %, minimal in 11.6 % resp. 11.5 % and unchanged to worsened in 4.2 % resp. 4.6 %, and tolerability was good in 91.5 % resp. 90.6 %. While the numbers of men and women taking herbal products were comparable for many benefit areas, the proportion of men taking herbal products for common cold and joint pain was higher than that of women. In contrast, the proportion of women taking herbal products for anxiety, sleep disturbance, menopausal symptoms and bladder dysfunction was higher.

Conclusion The data sheds light to a field of gender pharmacology, in which up to now data have been rare [4]. In general men and women using phytomedicines in a similar way, while there were clear differences in some specific areas of application. They can be a useful background information for therapeutic decisions for these patients, when taking into account, that data are based on the subjective assessments of patients willing to participate in the survey. Data from clinical diagnosis, that may complement this study, are therefore desirable.

Acknowledgments The study is supported by Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR, Bonn, Germany.

Disclosures T.A-S. and C.S. have been Pharmacy interns, while O.K. is employee at Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH, Darmstadt. E.S. and K.N. have received research funding, honorary or travel support from Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH.

Publication History

Article published online:
22 June 2021

• References

• 1 Marquardt P. et al. Wien Med Wochenschr 2015; 165: 236-242
• 2 Raskopf E. et al. Z Phytother 2017; 38 (Suppl 01): S40-S41
• 3 European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). 2018 , EMA/929209/2011
• 4 Voß U. et al. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2012; 473-497