TwHF

Posted , 4 users are following.

Has anyone tried the Chinese herbal remedy for RA that the BMJ has suggested is no less effective than methotrexate? Just wondered if anyone was thinking of this route for their RA? When I went to my clinic they actually said I shouldn't even look at Chinese remedies. But this one seems to be offering an alternative or add on to methotrexate. Any thoughts? 

0 likes, 28 replies

28 Replies

Next
  • Posted

    Take MTX. Forget this herbal remedy. If it really was good it would be all the rage.
  • Posted

    Hi Ivy,  I wouldn't bother.  I tried everything and nothing worked.  Stick to methotrexate.  

    Good Luck 

  • Posted

    I agree - stay with the proven meds for RA. We have enough to cope with as it is so why introduce something else into the mix. As already said, if the Chinese remedy was so good, don't you think we'd all be encouraged to try it. 
  • Posted

    I think it is very common inChina. It may not be used here because of the industry behind the drugs. I am going to see what it's about. I think we should not always diss something because it isn't a product of a big pharmaceutical. The evidence is suggesting it can work. And with methotrexate. Just wondered!
  • Posted

    At the end of the day it's your right to do whatever you feel is right for you. Good luck and let me know how you get on.... I'd be interested in knowing if you have any problems or even improvement.
  • Posted

    Wouldn't touch the stuff. Not only have they not been tested, so probably don't work, they might even be dangerous. Stay away!!
    • Posted

      It has been tested and it has shown extremely excellent results. In fact, the BMJ has the article listed. Try not to be so frightened of things that challenge conventional treatments when it may be worth considering. 
    • Posted

      I'm not frightened Iyy, but I have recently been treated for an Oestrogen positive breast cancer and have to take a tablet every day to stop my body from producing Oestrogen, in the hope it will prevent a recurrence. I don't know if any of these treatments would have the opposite effect and cause Oestrogen to begin being produced again. For example, I can't take anything that contains plant Oestrogens as that would have a negative effect on my efforts to try and prevent my cancer coming back. My rheumatologist even had to check with my oncologist before she put me back on Methotrexate, as it can cause certain skin cancers. I have to take all these things into consideration. If they work for others, good for them, but I'm not taking the risk of getting breast cancer again.
    • Posted

      Your right to listen to trained people who take yrs to give the advise they give. I read an article recently where a Chinese alternative practitioner was saying, not to go in off the street as so many are handing out to many herbal remedies, which without proper medical patient history & enough med knowledge are doing more harm than good. Have to know about these things before putting all faith (&money) in them, as we are all hoping there is help coming. I can but hope my prayer will do something for all x
  • Posted

    Hey! Not so fast, guys... The BMJ is a highly reputable journal, almost to Lancet standards, as far as I know.

    Presumably they've done clinical trials?

    If the BMJ say there really is a Chinese herb that can replicate the effects of MTX, let your GP know, and why not give it a go?

    Just make sure you GP is aware of what you're doing and wag the reference in his or her face!

    And please, give us the link....

  • Posted

    Just how many of you have read the study?

    First of all, there were 207 patients. They were divided into 3 group: MTX only, the herb only, combination of both. No controls [meaning no group got placebos].

    Only 174 patients completed the trial. No information about which group the "drop outs" had been assigned.

    The people who got MTX had never used MTX before. And they were given 12.5 mg, which is not helpful in moderate to severe RA.

    It doesn't say HOW they calculated the results.....that could  skew the outcome.

    The investigators note that since this trial lasted for 24 weeks, disease progression of patients was not measured in the long term. Therefore, the team plans to follow these patients for a further 2 years and assess disease progression once participants have completed treatment.

    Furthermore, the researchers point out since placebo tablets were not available for this study, the treating doctors and patients in this study were not blinded to medication. They add that in future, a double-blind trial assessing the effects of TwHF is warranted.

    Originally, a decoction of TwHF, or hot water extract, which is one of the most common preparations in traditional Chinese medicine, was employed to treat patients. Results from these uncontrolled trials reported excellent therapeutic effects but noted a large number of adverse effects. This stimulated pharmaceutical development with the goal of maintaining efficacy but diminishing toxicity of the TwHF preparations. As a result of this activity, two new preparations of TwHF were developed in China in the 1970s. One was an ethyl acetate (EA) extract, and the second was a chloroform-methanol extract known as T2. Both of these extracts of TwHF claimed to have better therapeutic benefit with reduced adverse effects. Both of these preparations have become commercially available in China and have been used extensively. The availability of these preparations has made it possible to carry out numerous clinical trials of TwHF in a variety of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases

    So I wouldn't go running off and trying this.

    • Posted

      I absolutely agree Lynn. No point saying anything more...... I certainly wouldn't take it.

       

    • Posted

      Thanks for giving the low-down, Lynn. Saves us having to look it up.

      Yes, i agree with you. Sounds dubious.

      But what did the BMJ conclude about it? Such a trial with no controls and so little info... I'm surprised!

    • Posted

      As I understand it, the BMJ concluded that further controlled studies would need to be undertaken before a formal position could be made.

      I just came across the "Annals of Rheumatic Diseases/British Medical Journal" commentary by some doctors in the Netherlands on the original article.  [Again, I cannot post the link.....we see what the moderators do to link.] So I will summarize:

      "While we have great regard for all the efforts.....wefear that fundamental design of the trial and the fallible reporting preclude a balanced interpretation....." It goes on to specifically identify all the fallacies, etc., etc.

      If you put the following terms in the Google search engine:

      ARD

      BMJ

      TWHF

      volume 73

      issue 9

      ...you should come across the commentary....

      Then if you google the following, you'll find the rebuttal to the commentary [which still doesn't provide the BMJ enough credible evidence to form an opinion.

      ARD

      BMJ

      TWHF

      volume 73

      issue 10

       

    • Posted

      Thanks, Lynn. You sure are generous with your input!

Report or request deletion

Thanks for your help!

We want the community to be a useful resource for our users but it is important to remember that the community are not moderated or reviewed by doctors and so you should not rely on opinions or advice given by other users in respect of any healthcare matters. Always speak to your doctor before acting and in cases of emergency seek appropriate medical assistance immediately. Use of the community is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and steps will be taken to remove posts identified as being in breach of those terms.