Omnia SanaSymptom → Plant Sources
Willow Bark (Salix alba) and Pain (general): evidence and sources
Analgesic and anti-inflammatory for low back pain (moderate evidence; dose-dependent, around 240 mg salicin/day) - in an RCT, 240 mg salicin/day left 39% pain-free vs 6% on placebo within 4 weeks; Relief of joint pain, osteoarthritis and rheumatic complaints
For educational purposes only, not medical advice. Always consult a qualified practitioner before using medicinal plants, especially alongside prescribed medication, during pregnancy, or for a serious condition.
Since ancient times preparations from Salix species have been used to alleviate pain. The aim of this study was to update the evidence of the effectiveness of willow bark products in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain. OVID(MEDLINE), PUBMED, Silverplatter, and CENTRAL and manual searches were used to identify clinical trials investigating Salix preparations. Authors SC and JEV extracted the data independently and discussed disagreements. Seven manuscripts were identified, reporting four trials with confirmatory and four with exploratory study designs. Three manuscripts presented the same trial data: repetitious reports were excluded. One confirmatory and two exploratory studies indicate a dose-dependent analgesic effect not inferior to rofecoxib in patients with low back pain. In one exploratory and one confirmatory study conflicting results were achieved in participants with osteoarthritis. No significant effect was seen in a confirmatory study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but this study was grossly underpowered. All studies investigated ethanolic extracts with daily doses up to 240 mg salicin over periods of up to six weeks. Minor adverse events occurred during treatment. The review provides moderate evidence of effectiveness for the use of ethanolic willow bark extract in low back pain. Further studies are required to find out if treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis requires extract with higher doses than 240 mg salicin per day.
Background Low-back pain is a common condition and a substantial economic burden in industrialized societies. A large proportion of patients with chronic low-back pain use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in low-back pain. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for non-specific low-back pain. Search strategy We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field Trials Register (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005), EMBASE (1980 to July 2005); checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this very specialized area. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials, examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute or chronic non-specific low-back pain. The interventions were herbal medicines, defined as plants that are used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Data collection and analysis Two authors (JJG & MVT) conducted the database searches. One author contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. Full references and abstracts of the identified studies were downloaded. A hard copy was retrieved for final inclusion decisions. Methodological quality and clinical relevance were assessed separately by two individuals. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Main results Ten trials were included in this review. Two high quality trials examining the effects of Harpagophytum Procumbens (Devil's Claw) found strong evidence that daily doses standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside were better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication. Another high quality trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (Vioxx). Two trials examining the effects of Salix Alba (White Willow Bark) found moderate evidence that daily doses standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin were better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication. An additional trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Three low quality trials on Capsicum Frutescens (Cayenne), examining various topical preparations, found moderate evidence that Capsicum Frutescens produced more favourable results than placebo and one trial found equivalence to a homeopathic ointment. Authors' conclusions Harpagophytum Procumbens, Salix Alba and Capsicum Frutescens seem to reduce pain more than placebo. Additional trials testing these herbal medicines against standard treatments are needed. The quality of reporting in these trials was generally poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions.
Purpose Herbal medicines are widely used for the treatment of pain, although there is not much information on their effectiveness. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of willow (Salix) bark extract, which is widely used in Europe, for the treatment of low back pain. Subjects and methods We enrolled 210 patients with an exacerbation of chronic low back pain who reported current pain of 5 or more (out of 10) on a visual analog scale. They were randomly assigned to receive an oral willow bark extract with either 120 mg (low dose) or 240 mg (high dose) of salicin, or placebo, with tramadol as the sole rescue medication, in a 4-week blinded trial. The principal outcome measure was the proportion of patients who were pain-free without tramadol for at least 5 days during the final week of the study. Results The treatment and placebo groups were similar at baseline in 114 of 120 clinical features. A total of 191 patients completed the study. The numbers of pain-free patients in the last week of treatment were 27 (39%) of 65 in the group receiving high-dose extract, 15 (21%) of 67 in the group receiving low-dose extract, and 4 (6%) of 59 in the placebo group (P Conclusion Willow bark extract may be a useful and safe treatment for low back pain.
4 sources supporting Willow Bark for Pain (general). Includes scientific publications, books, monographs and traditional-use references.
Mechanistic basis
This use is associated with the plant's analgesic (pain relief) action. Further evidence for that pharmacology:
Willow bark extract has been used for thousands of years as an anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic. In spite of its long history of use, relatively few human and animal studies have been published that confirm anecdotal observations. A small number of clinical studies have been conducted that support the use of willow bark extracts in chronic lower back and joint pain and osteoarthritis. Willow bark extracts also are widely used in sports performance and weight loss products presumably because of anti-inflammatory and analgesic activities, although no human studies have been published that specifically and directly document beneficial effects. In recent years, various in vitro and animal studies have demonstrated that the anti-inflammatory activity of willow bark extract is associated with down regulation of the inflammatory mediators tumor necrosis factor-α and nuclear factor-kappa B. Although willow bark extracts are generally standardized to salicin, other ingredients in the extracts including other salicylates as well as polyphenols, and flavonoids may also play prominent roles in the therapeutic actions. Adverse effects appear to be minimal as compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin. The primary cause for concern may relate to allergic reactions in salicylate-sensitive individuals.
Background Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition and imposes a substantial economic burden upon people living in industrialized societies. A large proportion of people with chronic LBP use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in treating people with LBP. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for non-specific LBP. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases up to September 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinical Trials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal and PubMed; checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this area. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute, or chronic non-specific LBP. The interventions were herbal medicines which we defined as plants used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Data collection and analysis A library scientist with the Cochrane Back Review Group conducted the database searches. One review author contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. We downloaded full references and abstracts of the identified studies and retrieved a hard copy of each study for final inclusion decisions. Two review authors assessed risk of bias, GRADE criteria (GRADE 2004), and CONSORT compliance and a random subset were compared to assessments by a third individual. Two review authors assessed clinical relevance and resolved any disagreements by consensus. Main results We included 14 RCTs (2050 participants) in this review. One trial on Solidago chilensis M. (Brazilian arnica) (20 participants) found very low quality evidence of reduction in perception of pain and improved flexibility with application of Brazilian arnica-containing gel twice daily as compared to placebo gel. Capsicum frutescens cream or plaster probably produces more favourable results than placebo in people with chronic LBP (three trials, 755 participants, moderate quality evidence). Based on current evidence, it is not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for treating people with acute LBP compared to placebo (one trial, 40 participants, low quality evidence). Another trial found equivalence of C. frutescens cream to a homeopathic ointment (one trial, 161 participants, very low quality evidence). Daily doses of Harpagophytum procumbens (devil's claw), standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside, may be better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and may reduce use of rescue medication (two trials, 315 participants, low quality evidence). Another H. procumbens trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (Vioxx®) but was of very low quality (one trial, 88 participants, very low quality). Daily doses of Salix alba (white willow bark), standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin, are probably better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication (two trials, 261 participants, moderate quality evidence). An additional trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (one trial, 228 participants) but was graded as very low quality evidence. S. alba minimally affected platelet thrombosis versus a cardioprotective dose of acetylsalicylate (one trial, 51 participants). One trial (120 participants) examining Symphytum officinale L. (comfrey root extract) found low quality evidence that a Kytta-Salbe comfrey extract ointment is better than placebo ointment for short-term improvements in pain as assessed by VAS. Aromatic lavender essential oil applied by acupressure may reduce subjective pain intensity and improve lateral spine flexion and walking time compared to untreated participants (one trial, 61 participants,very low quality evidence). No significant adverse events were noted within the included trials. Authors' conclusions C. frutescens (Cayenne) reduces pain more than placebo. Although H. procumbens, S. alba, S. officinale L., S. chilensis, and lavender essential oil also seem to reduce pain more than placebo, evidence for these substances was of moderate quality at best. Additional well-designed large trials are needed to test these herbal medicines against standard treatments. In general, the completeness of reporting in these trials was poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions.