Article first published online: 13 NOV 2015
DOI: 10.1111/cod.12483
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Issue
- †[For Part 1, see Contact Dermatitis 71(1): 1–12 (2014); doi: 10.1111/cod.12222]; [For Part 2, see Contact Dermatitis 72(4): 193–205 (2015); doi: 10.1111/cod.12328]
- [see http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/document_listing/document_listing_000212.jsp (last accessed 29 July 2015)]
- Conflicts of interest: Gioacchino Calapai and Ioanna Chinou are both members of the Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In accordance with EMA policy on scientific publications, the following disclaimer is added: ‘The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties.’ There are no other conflicts of interests to declare for the other authors.
Keywords:
- adverse drug reaction;
- contact dermatitis;
- herbal medicine;
- Mentha × piperita;
- Oenothera biennis;
- phytodermatitis;
- Pimpinella anisum;
- Quercus spp.;
- Rosmarinus officinalis;
- Ruscus aculeatus;
- Salvia officinalis;
- Solanum dulcamara
Summary
This
review focuses on contact dermatitis as an adverse effect of a
selection of topically used herbal medicinal products for which the
European Medicines Agency has completed an evaluation up to the end of
November 2013 and for which a Community herbal monograph – now (since
2015)† called a European Union herbal monograph – has been produced. Part 3: Mentha × piperita L.–Solanum dulcamara L.