Talk:Hypericum perforatum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:St John's wort)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Plants (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Dietary Supplements (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Hypericum perforatum is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Use as liquor flavoring[edit]

In Sweden, and I presume other countries, St John's Wroth is used to flavor "Brännvin", i.e. har liquor, to make a blood-red colored snaps. This page does only discuss it's medicinal use, and it's effect on the ecology of various places. There's a lot of "rules" as how to pick the buds (as, according to the enthusiast only the bugs are good for flavoring), e.g. they shall be picked on a warm dry day, after 6 pm o' clock, one mustn't touch the buds with one's fingers as that will release hypericin (it's supposed to be saved for the liquor), etc. etc. While it may be a niche field, it's certainly the most common use for St John's worth by ordinary people (whom rarely make herbal supplements at home, I guess). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.129.166 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dosage?[edit]

The article says nothing (unless I've missed it) about recommended dosage. Given that the recommended dosage differs markedly from brand to brand, some info on this would be appreciated.

Peterdwise (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PHARMMOS we usually don't give dosing information due to the fact it can be construed as personal medical advice. I think we should remove dosing information completely due to a number of reasons:
1. It can, as I previously mentioned, be construed as personal medical advice. And quite honestly, what other value could it serve?
2. It can be seen as giving undue weight to certain products, due to the fact it's impossible to generalise dosing to every product due to the high degree of variability in the chemical composition of products.
3. Because as I previously mentioned there's a high degree of variability in available products.
Fuse809 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Antiinflammatory properties[edit]

Hi @Seppi333:,

We've worked together on a lot of articles and I have tremendous respect for your judgement. But its hard for me to understand your restoration of "anti-inflammatory" as a property of this herb. Yes, the references you added are secondary, and they do state that, but if you read the article the evidence they quote all seems to be in vitro, which you of all people understand is a far cry from supporting a medical claim.

Could you elaborate on your reasoning here? Many thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not use in vitro data or animal studies to make any medical claims per WP:MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDANIMAL; however, this applies directly to the source in question. If a review or professional med/pharm web/book source indicates that something holds for animals or in vitro, article text must reflect this as such. If the webpage or review indicates that this is for humans or merely implies this as is often the case (e.g., claims made without indicating a species in any paper with "Human" in the mesh terms but no other animal species or "animals" listed there), then we don't go through and examine the primary sources they cited; the statement made in the secondary source is all that matters (even if it's completely wrong), not the cited primary source. This is reflected in the cautionary note at the bottom paragraph of WP:MEDASSESS.
If we excluded animal and in vitro evidence from all reviews in writing medical articles, we wouldn't have much, if any, cell signaling content in probably most of our articles. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you too much about this, we've done too many good things together. But I'd say that we do include animal and in vitro data when it has been cited in a review, but we make it very clear that it is in vitro or animal data only. The word "anti-inflammatory" implies medical use in people to my mind. Certainly I do not think the average reader will finish that paragraph and come away with the message "it inhibits certain enzymes involved in the inflammatory cascade in vitro but god knows if the active principle is orally available or has any effect at all in people".

I realize that the review said "anti-inflammatory", but I think we have a responsibility to our readers in spite of whatever poor choice of language or ignorance is expressed by a reviewer. And I shudder to think what the EBM people here would say if we tried to call sitagliptin an anti-inflammatory based on a review that cited in vitro enzyme inhibition data.

I've said my piece, please take it into consideration. I won't pursue this further. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Pharmacokinetic Interactions[edit]

Hello Page Owners/Experts,

As a common reader to this page, I wish to highlight some text that appeared to me to be in contradiction with the pages on 3A4/2C9.

First the quote:

Pharmacokinetic interactions

St John's wort has been shown to cause multiple drug interactions through induction of the cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C9, and CYP1A2 (females only). This drug-metabolizing enzyme induction results in the increased metabolism of certain drugs, leading to decreased plasma concentration and potential clinical effect.

So, here is my concern:

If I read this quote on its own, my conclusion would be that SJW induces CYP3A4 and CYP2C9[1]. i.e. Both. However, if I read on the pages for CYP3A4[2] and CYP2C9[3], it appears to me that SJW induces 3A4 but inhibits 2C9. i.e. I have noticed an apparent contradiction.

Please take a look, and fix or clarify as appropriate.

Thanks!

References

Simple in ca (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the source given says nothing about CYP2C9, so I removed the reference to this in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


I feel that the page needs some reorganization of the interactions section. It's a bit scattered, but I'm not sure how to approach the clean-up. If there are any users that especially agree with me and can take it upon themselves to clean up the page, please do. JCoppess18 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hypericum perforatum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)