Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T04:07:55.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

St John's wort for depression

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Klaus Linde,
Michael Berner,
Matthias Egger and
Cynthia Mulrow
Klaus Linde*
Affiliation:
Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität München, Munich
Michael Berner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Freiburg, Germany
Matthias Egger
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Switzerland
Cynthia Mulrow
Affiliation:
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas, USA
*
Dr med. Klaus Linde, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität Munchen, Kaiserstrasse 9, 80801 München, Germany. Tel: +49 89 726697 15; fax: +49 89 393484; e-mail: Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) are widely used to treat depression. Evidence for its efficacy has been criticised on methodological grounds.

Aims

To update evidence from randomised trials regarding the effectiveness of Hypericum extracts.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 double-blind randomised controlled trials that compared clinical effects of Hypericum monopreparation with either placebo or a standard antidepressant in adults with depressive disorders.

Results

Larger placebo-controlled trials restricted to patients with major depression showed only minor effects over placebo, while older and smaller trials not restricted to patients with major depression showed marked effects. Compared with standard antidepressants Hypericum extracts had similar effects.

Conclusions

Current evidence regarding Hypericum extracts is inconsistent and confusing. In patients who meet criteria for major depression, several recent placebo-controlled trials suggest that Hypericum has minimal beneficial effects while other trials suggest that Hypericum and standard antidepressants have similar beneficial effects.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 186 , Issue 2 , February 2005, pp. 99 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) are widely used to treat depression. Systematic reviews published between 1996 and 2000 concluded that such extracts are more effective than placebo and are comparable with older antidepressants in the treatment of mild to moderate depression (Reference Linde, Ramirez and MulrowLinde et al, 1996; Reference VolzVolz, 1997; Reference Linde and MulrowLinde & Mulrow, 1998; Reference Josey and TacketJosey & Tacket, 1999; Reference Gaster and HolroydGaster & Holroyd, 2000; Reference Williams, Mulrow and ChiquetteWilliams et al, 2000). Several older trials included in these reviews were criticised because they included patients with few or mild symptoms who did not meet criteria for major depression, were conducted by primary care physicians who were not experienced in depression research, or used low doses of comparator drugs (Reference Shelton, Keller and GelenbergShelton et al, 2001). Also, smaller trials included in the reviews tended to report larger treatment effects, which might be explained by publication bias or lower methodological quality of smaller trials (Reference Sterne, Gavaghan and EggerSterne et al, 2000).

Several large studies, including some with negative findings, have been published recently (Reference Montgomery, Hübner and GrigoleitMontgomery et al, 2000; Reference Shelton, Keller and GelenbergShelton et al, 2001; Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group, 2002). We therefore updated our previous review (Reference Linde, Ramirez and MulrowLinde et al, 1996; Reference Linde and MulrowLinde & Mulrow, 1998), paying particular attention to factors such as type and severity of depression and trial size that might explain conflicting results. Our updated review addresses the following specific questions. Are extracts of St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) more effective than placebo, and as effective as standard antidepressants, in improving symptoms in adults with depression? Are Hypericum extracts less effective in patients who meet criteria for major depression than in patients with depressive symptoms who may not meet criteria for major depression? Do trials show that Hypericum extracts have less adverse effects than standard antidepressants?

METHOD

Data sources

We searched for English and non-English language and published and unpublished trials indexed in the register of the Cochrane Collaborative Review Group for Depression, Anxiety and Neuroses (last search July 2003) and PubMed (text word HYPERICUM, search dates 1998 to May 2004). We also checked reference lists of trials and reviews, contacted manufacturers and experts in the field, and relied on our prior extensive searches (Reference Linde, Ramirez and MulrowLinde et al, 1996; Reference Linde and MulrowLinde & Mulrow, 1998). One reviewer (K.L.) initially screened reference lists to identify controlled clinical studies of Hypericum preparations in humans. At least two reviewers independently reviewed the full text of all such articles to assess whether they met inclusion criteria. Disagreements occurred for two studies; these were resolved by consensus.

Inclusion criteria

We selected studies that met the following criteria:

  1. (a) study design - double-blind, randomised, controlled trial;

  2. (b) participants - adult patients treated for depressive disorders;

  3. (c) experimental intervention - Hypericum monopreparation for at least 4 weeks;

  4. (d) control intervention - placebo or a synthetic standard antidepressant;

  5. (e) outcome measure - assessment of symptoms with a depression scale or general assessment of clinical response.

These criteria were more restrictive than those used in our prior reviews, which allowed single-blind trials, controlled trials without explicit randomisation, trials shorter than 4 weeks, combinations of Hypericum and other plant extracts, and comparison groups that were treated with drugs other than standard antidepressants, for example diazepam (Reference Linde, Ramirez and MulrowLinde et al, 1996; Reference Linde and MulrowLinde & Mulrow, 1998).

Data extraction, outcome definition and assessment of methodological quality

Using a pre-tested form, two reviewers independently extracted information regarding trial participants, methods, interventions, outcomes and study quality. Authors and/or sponsors were contacted to provide missing information. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We extracted the numbers of patients who were randomised and analysed and who completed protocols, the number and reasons for drop-outs and withdrawals, numbers of patients reporting adverse effects, and the number and type of adverse effects that were reported. We assessed numbers of patients who were classified as responders based on score improvements on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD; first preference), the Clinical Global Impression index (CGI; sub-scale global improvement rating as at least ‘much improved’; second preference) or any other clinical response measurement (third preference). We used the Jadad scale (items on randomisation, masking and reporting of drop-outs and withdrawals) and a checklist developed by one of us (items on treatment allocation, concealment of allocation, baseline comparability, physician and patient masking, and selection bias after allocation) to help guide assessments of study quality (Reference Jadad, Moore and CarrollJadad et al, 1996; Reference Linde, Jonas and MelchartLinde et al, 2001).

Statistical analyses

We considered the proportion of responders at the end of treatment as the main outcome measure, or in case of treatment phases longer than 6 weeks, at the time point defined for primary outcome measurement by the study investigators. We used response rate ratios (ratios of the number of patients classified as responders divided by the number of patients randomised to the respective group) and their 95% confidence intervals for the analysis of treatment response. Rate ratios greater than 1 indicate better response in the Hypericum group. The main outcome measure for the safety analysis was the number of patients who dropped out because of adverse effects. Secondary measures were the total number of patients who dropped out and the number of patients reporting adverse effects. Because of the highly variable frequency of side-effects or adverse effects reported, odds ratios instead of rate ratios were calculated. Odds ratios less than 1 indicate that fewer events occurred in the Hypericum group. We combined results on the rate ratio or odds ratio using fixed or random effects models, using the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager Software 4.1 (Update Software, Oxford, UK). In addition, meta-regression analyses were performed using Stata 8.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). To investigate the degree of between-trial heterogeneity, the chi-squared test was performed and I squared (Reference Higgins, Thompson and DeeksHiggins et al, 2003) and tau squared (Reference Thompson and SharpThompson & Sharp, 1999) were calculated. A statistical test of funnel plot asymmetry, which may indicate the presence of publication bias, was performed (Reference Egger, Davey Smith and SchneiderEgger et al, 1997). The extent to which one or more study-level variables explained heterogeneity in the treatment effects was then explored by fitting random effects meta-regression models (Reference Thompson and SharpThompson & Sharp, 1999; Reference Sterne, Egger and Davey SmithSterne et al, 2001). The following variables were entered in the model: type of depression (major depression v. other); severity of depression (HRSD scores at baseline; as both the 17-item and the 21-item HRSD scales were used, baseline scores were standardised by multiplying the scores from the 21-item scale by 0.81 (17/21)); dosage of Hypericum extract (mg per day); type of extract (LI 160 v. other); study location (German-speaking Europe v. other); study location (German-speaking Europe v. other), study duration (weeks); and year of publication. Two variables relating to the quality of trials were also included (whether or not an adequate method of allocation concealment was described, and whether or not patients dropping out were reported). Finally, we included the variance of the rate or odds ratio to explore the importance of small-study effects (the tendency for smaller studies to show larger treatment effects; Reference Sterne, Egger and Davey SmithSterne et al, 2001). For reasons of simplicity more precise studies (trials with smaller variance) are described in the results as larger trials, less precise studies as smaller trials.

RESULTS

Identification of eligible trials

Of 68 possible trials, 37 trials met inclusion criteria and contributed 26 comparisons with placebo and 14 comparisons with standard antidepressants (Fig. 1). We excluded 18 trials that involved either healthy volunteers (Reference HerbergHerberg, 1991; Johnson et al, Reference Johnson, Siebenhüner and Hofer1992, Reference Johnson, Ksciuk and Woelk1993; Reference Schmidt, Harrer and KuhnSchmidt et al, 1993; Reference Schulz and JobertSchulz & Jobert, 1993; Reference Staffeldt, Kerb and BrockmöllerStaffeldt et al, 1993; Reference Brockmöller, Reum and BauerBrockmöller et al, 1997; plus one unpublished trial by Wienert et al, described at the Third Phytotherapy Congress in Lübeck-Travemünde in 1991) or patients without depression (Reference Bendre and DharmadhikariBendre & Dharmadhikari, 1980; Reference PanijelPanijel, 1985; Reference AlbertiniAlbertini, 1986; Reference WerthWerth, 1989; Reference DittmerDittmer, 1992; Reference Maisenbacher, Schmidt and SchenkMaisenbacher et al, 1995; Reference Häring, Hauns and HermannHäring et al, 1996; Reference Hottenrott, Sommer and LehrlHottenrott et al, 1997; Reference Sindrup, Madsen and BachSindrup et al, 2000; Reference Volz, Murck and KasperVolz et al, 2002); five that lacked placebo or standard antidepressant control groups (Reference SpielbergerSpielberger, 1985; Reference Martinez, Kasper and RuhrmannMartinez et al, 1993; Reference Lenoir, Degenring and SallerLenoir et al, 1999; Reference ZellerZeller, 2000; plus one unpublished trial by Bernhardt et al described at the Fifth Phytotherapy Congress in Bonn in 1993); two that only measured physiological outcomes (electroencephalograph) (Reference Czekalla, Gastpar and HübnerCzekalla et al, 1997; Reference Kugler, Schmidt and GrollKugler et al, 1990a ), two that were not masked (Reference WarneckeWarnecke, 1986; Reference Kugler, Weidenhammer and SchmidtKugler et al, 1990b ), and three that tested combinations of Hypericum and other plant extracts (Reference StegerSteger, 1985; Reference Ditzler, Gessner and SchattonDitzler et al, 1994; Reference Hiller and RahlfsHiller & Rahlfs, 1995). Among the 30 excluded trials, seven had been included in previous versions of our reviews. We were unable to obtain the report of one trial (Reference Agrawal, Dixit and DubeyAgrawal et al, 1994) and only had a report from an oral presentation for another: anonymous (2000) on a study by Bjerkenstedt et al. The latter trial was included in the descriptive review but not in meta-analyses. One trial was available only as a thesis (Reference KönigKönig, 1993). Published abstracts of two trials were supplemented with additional information from an author (Reference Osterheider, Schmidtke and BeckmannOsterheider et al, 1992), and a detailed hand-out and additional information from a sponsor (Reference Montgomery, Hübner and GrigoleitMontgomery et al, 2000). Overall, we obtained additional information from authors, sponsors or both for 31 trials.

Fig. 1

Selection of reported trials for comparison.

Placebo comparisons

Twenty-six trials involving 3320 patients had placebo-control groups (Table 1). Twenty-one originated from German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland), two from the USA and one each from the UK, France and Sweden. The latter five trials, as well as eight trials from German-speaking countries, were restricted to patients with a diagnosis of major depression according to DSM (III or later) (American Psychiatric Association, 1980, 1987, 1994) or ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1993) criteria. Severity of depression was classified as mild to moderate in most trials.

Table 1

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of Hypericum perforatum extracts in patients with depression

Study Country n Major depression HRSD baseline score (version) Duration (weeks) Hypericum extract Definition of response1
Preparation Dosage (mg)
Hoffman & Kühl (1979) Germany 60 No 6 Hyperforat NA 4
Schlich et al (Reference Schlich, Braukmann and Schenk1987) Germany 49 No 31.3 (21) 4 Psychotonin M 350 1
Schmidt et al (Reference Schmidt, Schenk and Schwarz1989) Germany 40 No 29.4 (21) 4 Psychotonin M 500 1
Halama (Reference Halama1991) Germany 50 No 18.2 (17) 4 LI 1603 900 1
Harrer et al (Reference Harrer, Schmidt and Kuhn1991) Austria 120 No 21.3 (NA) 6 Psychotonin M 500
Osterheider et al (Reference Osterheider, Schmidtke and Beckmann1992) Germany 47 No 22.2 (NA) 8 Psychotonin M 500 3
Reh et al (Reference Reh, Laux and Schenk1992) Germany 50 No 19.5 (21) 8 Neuroplant3 380 1
Hübner et al (Reference Hübner, Lande and Podzuweit1993) Germany 40 No 12.5 (17) 4 LI 1603 900 1
Lehrl & Woelk (Reference Lehrl and Woelk1993) Germany 50 Yes 22.7 (21) 4 LI 1603 900 1
Schmidt & Sommer (Reference Schmidt and Sommer1993) Germany 65 No 16.5 (21) 6 LI 1603 900 1
Quandt et al (Reference Quandt, Schmidt and Schenk1993) Germany 88 No 17.6 (21) 4 Psychotonin M 500 1
König (Reference König1993) Switzerland 112 No 6 Z 90017 500-1000 4
Sommer & Harrer (Reference Sommer and Harrer1994) Germany/Austria 105 No 15.8 (21) 4 LI 1603 900 1
Witte et al (Reference Witte, Harrer and Kaptan1995) Germany 97 Yes 23.6 (21) 6 Psychotonin f. 240 1
Hänsgen & Vesper (Reference Hänsgen and Vesper1996) Germany 197 Yes 20.7 (21) 4 LI 160 900 1
Laakmann et al (Reference Laakmann, Schüle and Baghai1998) Germany 1474 Yes 21.1 (17) 6 WS 5572 900 2
Schrader et al (Reference Schrader, Meier and Brattström1998) Germany 162 Yes 19.4 (21) 6 ZE 117 500 1
Philipp et al (Reference Philipp, Kohnen and Hiller1999) Germany 2634 Yes 22.7 (17) 8 (6)5 STEI 3000 1050 1
Winkel et al (Reference Winkel, Koritsch and Piayda2000) Germany 119 No6 16.7 (21) 6 LI 160 900 3
Volz et al (2000) Germany 140 Yes 20.9 (21) 6 D 0496 500 5
Montgomery et al (Reference Montgomery, Hübner and Grigoleit2000) UK 247 Yes 21.5 (17) 12 (6)5 LI160 900 1
Kalb et al (Reference Kalb, Trautmann-Sponsel and Kieser2001) Germany 72 Yes 19.9 (17) 6 WS 5572 900 2
Shelton et al (Reference Shelton, Keller and Gelenberg2001) USA 200 Yes 22.5 (17) 8 LI 160 900-1200 2
HDTSG (2002) USA 3404 Yes 22.9 (17) 8 LI 160 900-1500 1
Lecrubier et al (Reference Lecrubier, Clerc and Didi2002) France 375 Yes 21.9 (17) 6 WS 5570 900 2
Bjerkenstedt et al 7 Sweden 1704 Yes NA 6 LI 160 900

Older trials differed from more recent ones in several respects (Table 2). Older trials were exclusively performed in German-language countries. Newer trials had larger sample sizes, were of longer duration and more often used a placebo run-in design. Newer trials also were more often restricted to patients who met criteria for major depression, and tended to include patients with more severe depression (i.e. higher scores on depression scales). Indicators of methodological quality and daily dosage also were slightly higher in more recent trials.

Table 2

Characteristics of 26 placebo-controlled trials of Hypericum extract monopreparations for depression, comparing trials published in different periods

Characteristic Period of publication
1979 to 1994 (n=13) 1995 to 2002 (n=13)
Performed outside German-speaking Europe, n 0 5
Number of patients randomised: mean (range) 67 (40-120) 188 (72-375)
Placebo run-in period mentioned, n 1 7
Sample met criteria for major depression, n 1 12
Outcome assessment with 17-item HRSD, n 3 7
Daily extract dosage at week 1, mg: mean (range) 640 (350-900) 800 (240-1050)
Median HRSD baseline score (adjusted for version) 18.2 20.5
Trial duration at least 6 weeks, n 7 13
Jadad score: mean (range) 3.6 (2-5) 4.3 (3-5)
Adequate method of concealment described, n 9 10

Of 24 trials with data on response to treatment, 21 used HRSD scores to characterise response, but definitions of response were not uniform across trials (see Table 1). One trial (Reference Osterheider, Schmidtke and BeckmannOsterheider et al, 1992) was excluded from pooled analyses because no response occurred in either group. For the remaining 23 trials responder rate ratios were heterogeneous (I2=75.4%, τ2=0.191, P<0.0001) and the funnel plot asymmetric (P<0.0001, Fig. 2). In univariate meta-regression analysis, larger trials with smaller variances of rate ratios (P<0.0001), trials limited to patients with major depression (P=0.026) and trials enrolling patients with higher HRSD scores (P=0.010) showed smaller treatment effects. Other factors associated with smaller treatment effects included more recent year of publication (P=0.001), origin from a non-German-speaking country (P=0.005) and longer trial duration (P=0.005). There was little evidence for an association of response with the daily dosage (P=0.33), the type of extract (P=0.74) or indicators of trial quality (method of concealment, P=0.15; reporting on drop-outs, P=0.12).

Fig. 2

Funnel plot of 23 placebo-controlled trials of Hypericum extract in depression, stratified by type of depression (○, studies in major depression; •, studies not restricted to major depression).

A bivariate model, which included the two variables related to our a priori hypotheses (type of depression and variance of rate ratio), explained a large proportion of between-trial heterogeneity (reducing τ2 from 0.191 to 0.030). The results from this model are illustrated in Figure 3, which shows a fixed-effects meta-analysis stratified by type of depression (major v. other) and precision (above or below median of variance). In the six smaller trials that were restricted to patients with major depression, the combined response rate ratio was 2.06 (95% CI 1.65-2.59), whereas in the six larger trials it was 1.15 (95% CI 1.02-1.29). In trials not restricted to patients with major depression, the rate ratio was 6.13 (95% CI 3.63-10.38) in five smaller trials and 1.71 (95% CI 1.40-2.09) in six larger trials.

Fig. 3

Response to Hypericum extracts in depression. Results (fixed-effects model) from placebo-controlled trials stratified by type of depression (major and other) and study size (above and below median of variance). Studies identified by first author and year (HDTSG, Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group; n, number of responders; N, number of patients per group; RR, response rate ratio).

Response rates in both placebo and intervention groups changed over time (Fig. 4). Weighted linear regression analysis shows that response rates in the placebo groups increased by 1.5% per year (P=0.013), whereas rates decreased in the Hypericum groups by 1.1% per year (P=0.049).

Fig. 4

Response rates over time to (a) Hypericum perforatum extracts and (b) placebo, from 34 active and 22 placebo trial arms.

Comparisons with standard antidepressants

Fourteen trials with a total of 2283 patients compared Hypericum extracts with standard antidepressants (Table 3); 13 provided sufficient data for efficacy and safety analyses. In six of these, the comparator drug was a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI; fluoxetine in four studies, sertraline in two). Eight studies were performed in German-speaking countries. All trials but one were restricted to patients with a diagnosis of major depression according to DSM or ICD-10 criteria. Responder rates were similar among patients receiving Hypericum extracts and those receiving standard antidepressants, with little evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2=4.2%, P=0.40) or funnel plot asymmetry (P=0.55). Combining trials using a fixed effects model gave a responder rate ratio of 1.01 (95% CI 0.93-1.10) for all 13 trials, a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% CI 0.93-1.14) for seven trials comparing Hypericum extracts with older antidepressants, and a rate ratio of 0.98 (95% CI 0.85-1.12) for six trials comparing Hypericum extracts with SSRIs (Fig. 5). In meta-regression analysis there was some evidence (P=0.033) that Hypericum extracts showed better results in the eight trials from German-speaking countries (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.16) whereas in the five trials from other countries standard antidepressants were slightly more effective (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71-1.01).

Table 3

Double-blind comparisons of Hypericum perforatum extract and standard antidepressants; all trials except that of Vorbach et al (Reference Schlich, Braukmann and Schenk1994) were restricted to patients meeting ICD-10 or DSM criteria for major depression

Study Country n HRSD baseline score (version) Duration (weeks) Hypericum extract Antidepressant
Preparation Dosage (mg) Drug Dosage (mg)
Older antidepressants
Bergmann et al (Reference Bergmann, Nüssner and Demling1993) Germany 80 15.6 (21) 6 Esbericum NA Amitriptyline 30
Harrer et al (Reference Harrer, Hübner and Podzuweit1993) Austria 102 21.0 (17) 4 LI 160 900 Maprotiline 75
Vorbach et al (Reference Vorbach, Hübner and Arnoldt1994) Germany 135 19.8 (17) 6 LI 160 900 Imipramine 75
Vorbach et al (Reference Vorbach, Arnoldt and Hübner1997) Germany 209 25.7 (17) 6 LI 160 1800 Imipramine 150
Wheatley (Reference Wheatley1997) UK 165 20.7 (17) 6 LI 160 900 Amitriptyline 75
Philipp et al (Reference Philipp, Kohnen and Hiller1999) Germany 2631 22.7 (17) 8 STEI 300 1050 Imipramine 100
Woelk (Reference Woelk2000) Germany 324 22.2 (17) 6 ZE 117 500 Imipramine 150
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors
Harrer et al (Reference Harrer, Schmidt and Kuhn1999) Germany 161 16.9 (17) 6 LoHyp-57 800 Fluoxetine 20
Brenner et al (Reference Brenner, Azbel and Madhusoodanan2000) USA 30 21.5 (17) 7 LI 160 900 Sertraline 75
Schrader (Reference Schrader2000) Germany 240 19.6 (21) 6 ZE 117 500 Fluoxetine 20
HDTSG (2002) USA 3402 22.8 (17) 8 LI 160 900-1500 Sertraline 50-100
Behnke et al (Reference Behnke, Jensen and Graubaum2002) Denmark 70 20.4 (17) 6 Calmigen 300 Fluoxetine 40
Van Gurp et al (Reference Van Gurp, Meterissian and Haiek2002) Canada 90 19.4 (17) 12 NA 900 Sertraline 50-100
Bjerkenstedt et al 2 Sweden 1741 26.3 (NA) 6 LI 160 900 Fluoxetine 20

Fig. 5

Response to Hypericum perforatum extracts in depression: results from controlled trials stratified by type of comparison drug. Studies identified by first author and year (HDTSG, Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group; n, number of responders; N, number of patients per group; RR, response rate ratio).

Safety analysis

In all safety analyses there was little evidence of between-trial heterogeneity or funnel plot asymmetry. Comparing Hypericum extracts with placebo, there was a trend for fewer patients to drop out for any reason (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64-1.06), fewer to drop out because of adverse effects (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.28-1.30) and less reporting of adverse effects (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.03) among patients receiving Hypericum. In a comparison with standard antidepressants, patients on Hypericum extracts were less likely to drop out (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.92), to drop out owing to adverse effects (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14-0.45; Fig. 6) and to report adverse effects (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.50). There was a trend towards a lower probability of dropping out because of adverse effects (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31-1.15; Fig. 6) and lower reporting of adverse effects (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.52-1.08) for patients treated with Hypericum extracts compared with patients treated with SSRIs. The proportions of patients dropping out for any reason did not differ (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65-1.40).

Fig. 6

Number of patients withdrawing from the trials because of adverse effects: results from controlled trials stratified by type of comparison drug. Studies identified by first author and year (n, number of responders; N, number of patients per group; OR, odds ratio).

DISCUSSION

In this updated meta-analysis, we found that Hypericum perforatum extracts improved symptoms more than placebo and similarly to standard antidepressants in adults with mild to moderate depression. However, pooled analysis of six recent, large, more precise trials restricted to patients with major depression showed only minimal benefits of Hypericum extract compared with placebo. Hypericum extracts caused fewer adverse effects than older antidepressants, and might have caused slightly fewer adverse effects than SSRIs.

We cannot rule out the possibility that selective publication of over-optimistic results in small trials explains our finding that the older trials more often had positive results than the newer ones, although we doubt that this is the case. Extensive searches identified three ‘negative’ trials that were published only as abstracts or theses (Reference Osterheider, Schmidtke and BeckmannOsterheider et al, 1992; Reference KönigKönig, 1993; Reference Montgomery, Hübner and GrigoleitMontgomery et al, 2000). However, we suspect that there are few (if any) additional unpublished trials; the five manufacturers whose products were tested in most of the trials told us they had no other unpublished research that met our criteria, apart from three trials currently being analysed or in the publication process.

We found no systematic difference between trials in major factors generally related to trial quality, but our subjective judgement was that more recent trials were of better overall quality than older trials. All trials were double-blind. Although adequacy of blinding was usually not formally assessed, achieving similarity between Hypericum extract and placebo preparations is not particularly difficult. Most trials concealed allocation assignments by using consecutively numbered identical medication containers, and drop-out rates were generally low. Some investigators in older trials might have had little experience with diagnostic standards and rating scales (Reference Shelton, Keller and GelenbergShelton et al, 2001), but even so such inexperience is unlikely to have biased findings in double-blind trials.

Newer trials more often included only patients with documented major depression and patients with higher HRSD values at baseline. Two of the newer trials from the USA (Reference Shelton, Keller and GelenbergShelton et al, 2001; Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group, 2002) included large proportions of patients who had been suffering from their current depressive episode for more than 2 years. Older trials were more often carried out in German-speaking countries where extracts are registered as drugs. Primary care physicians in these countries use Hypericum extracts mainly in patients with mild to moderate depressive complaints and use standard antidepressants in patients with more severe and/or long-lasting depression. Accordingly, older trials often included patients with neurotic depression (ICD-9 code 300.4; World Health Organization, 1977) or brief depression (309.0). Some explicitly excluded patients with a current depressive episode lasting longer than 6 months (Reference Hänsgen and VesperHänsgen & Vesper, 1996; Reference Volz, Eberhardt and GrillVolz et al, 2000). Older trials could have involved more patients with atypical depressive features and somatisation, whereas newer trials could have involved more patients with melancholic symptoms who might be diagnosed as suffering from endogeneous depression according to ICD-9 (Reference MurckMurck, 2002). If so, newer trials might have excluded groups that are particularly responsive to Hypericum extract.

Response rates observed in trials have changed over time. In trials of standard antidepressants, response rates increased over the past 20 years among both treatment and control groups (Reference Walsh, Seidman and SyskoWalsh et al, 2002). In trials of Hypericum v. placebo, response rates in the placebo groups increased markedly over time, whereas response rates in the Hypericum groups decreased slightly over time. Explanations for these changes over time are not clear, but older trials with unusually low placebo response rates are likely to provide overoptimistic estimates of the benefits of Hypericum.

Most trials that compared Hypericum extracts with standard antidepressants were restricted to patients with major depression. They showed that Hypericum extracts and older and newer antidepressants had similar efficacy. Do these findings contradict those of the recent placebo-controlled Hypericum trials and prove the efficacy of these extracts in patients with major depression? We do not believe so. Although summary estimates of trials comparing antidepressants with placebo consistently show that antidepressants are better than placebo in treating major depression (Reference Williams, Mulrow and ChiquetteWilliams et al, 2000), a relevant proportion of placebo-controlled trials show no statistically significant benefits of antidepressants (Reference Khan, Warner and BrownKhan et al, 2000; Reference Kirsch, Moore and ScoboriaKirsch et al, 2002). It is possible that patients in the trials comparing Hypericum extracts with standard antidepressants did not benefit from either the extracts or the antidepressants. Several of the older trials used low dosages of standard antidepressants. More recent trials used dosages generally considered adequate, but still in the lower range of recommended dosages. Theoretically, the dosages used in the trials could have led to underestimates of the efficacy of standard antidepressants, although meta-analyses do not conclusively show that higher doses of standard antidepressants are more effective than lower doses (Reference Furukawa, McGuire and BarbuiFurukawa et al, 2002; Reference Kirsch, Moore and ScoboriaKirsch et al, 2002). Three trials of Hypericum included both a placebo and a standard antidepressant control group; however, one of these is not fully published yet (Anonymous, 2000). One trial (Reference Philipp, Kohnen and HillerPhilipp et al, 1999) showed that Hypericum extract and standard antidepressants had similar efficacy and that both were superior to placebo, whereas the other (Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group, 2002) showed no statistically significant difference between any of the groups.

In summary, accumulating evidence regarding the efficacy of Hypericum extracts is complex. We believe that the heterogeneous findings of placebo-controlled trials of these extracts are partly due to an overestimation of their effects in smaller, older studies, and partly to variable efficacy of the extracts in different patient populations. Even though most available comparisons between Hypericum extracts and standard antidepressants suggest similar effects, we believe that current best evidence from placebo comparisons suggests only minor benefits of Hypericum in patients with major depression and no benefit in patients with prolonged duration of depression. There is no evidence about effectiveness in severe depression. We found that current best evidence, derived primarily from older studies in German-speaking countries in primary care settings, still suggests benefits in patients with mild to moderate depressive symptoms who do not necessarily meet criteria for major depression.

Many patients buy St John's wort products from health-food stores and might not disclose this to their physicians. Such uncontrolled use is problematic, because serious interactions can occur with a number of frequently used drugs: see systematic reviews by Hammerness et al (Reference Hammerness, Basch and Ulbricht2003) and Knüppel & Linde (Reference Knüppel and Linde2004). Physicians should therefore regularly ask their patients about their Hypericum intake. Also, the quality of Hypericum preparations can differ considerably, and a number of products contain only minor amounts of bioactive constituents (Reference Wurglics, Schulte-Löbbert and DingermannWurglics et al, 2003). Products that do not provide important information on the content, such as the amount of total extract (e.g. 900 mg), the extraction fluid (e.g. methanol 80% or ethanol 60%) and the ratio of raw material to extract (e.g. 3-6:1) should be avoided. Finally, current best evidence regarding efficacy of Hypericum extracts is not definitive. Mechanisms and specificity of actions of single components need further study. Ultimately, more trials that compare specific extracts with both placebo and standard synthetic antidepressants in clearly defined patient populations with and without major depression are needed.

Acknowledgements

We thank authors and manufacturers who provided additional information.

Footnotes

∗

This review has been performed as an update an existing Cochrane; an expanded version will be published in the Cochrane Library

Declaration of interest

M.B. has received a grant for research on Hypericum from Schwabe and fees for speaking at a meeting. K.L. has received travel expenses for speaking at a symposium sponsored by Schwabe.

References

Agrawal, A., Dixit, S. P., Dubey, G. P., et al (1994) Clinical evaluation of anti-depressant properties of basant (Hypericum perforatum). Pharmacopsychoecologia, 7, 253–256.Google Scholar
Albertini, H. (1986) Evaluation d'un traitement homtéopathique de la névralgie dentaire. In: Recherche en Homéopathie (eds J. Boiron, P. Belon & E. Hariveau), pp. 75–77. Lyon: Foundation Française pour la Recherche en Homéopathie.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1980) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn) (DSM–III). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn, revised) (DSM–III–R). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM–IV). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2000) Johanniskraut vs. SSRI – neue Erkenntnisse zur Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit. Nervenheilkunde, 19, 92–93.Google Scholar
Behnke, K., Jensen, G. S., Graubaum, H. J., et al (2002) Hypericum perforatum versus fluoxetine in the treatment of mild to moderate depression. Advances in Therapy, 19, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bendre, V. V. & Dharmadhikari, S. D. (1980) Arnica montana and Hypericum in dental practice. Hahnemann Gleanings, 47, 70–72.Google Scholar
Bergmann, R., Nüssner, H. & Demling, J. (1993) Behandlung leichter bis mittelschwerer depressionen. Therapiewoche Neurologie Psychiatrie, 7, 235–240.Google Scholar
Brenner, R., Azbel, V., Madhusoodanan, S., et al (2000) Comparison of an extract of hypericum (LI 160) and sertraline in the treatment of depression: a double-blind, randomized pilot study. Clinical Therapeutics, 22, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brockmöller, J., Reum, T., Bauer, S., et al (1997) Hypericin and pseudohypericin: pharmacokinetics and effects on photosensitivity in humans. Pharmacopsychiatry, 30 (suppl. 2): 94–101.Google Scholar
Czekalla, J., Gastpar, M., Hübner, W. D., et al (1997) The effect of hypericum extract on cardiac conduction as seen in the electrocardiogram compared to that of imipramine. Pharmacopsychiatry, 30 (suppl. 2): 86–88.Google Scholar
Dittmer, T. L. J. (1992) Die Behandlung von psychovegetativen Störungen mit Johanniskraut-Öl (Jukunda–Rot–Öl–Kapseln). Naturheilpraxis mit Natumedizin, 45, 118–122.Google Scholar
Ditzler, K., Gessner, B., Schatton, W. F. H., et al (1994) Clinical trial on Neuropas versus placebo in patients with mild to moderate depressive symptoms: a placebo-controlled, randomised double-blind study. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2, 5–13.Google Scholar
Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 629–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furukawa, T. A., McGuire, H. & Barbui, C. (2002) Meta-analysis of effects and side effects of low dosage tricyclic antidepressants in depression: systematic review. BMJ, 325, 991–999.Google Scholar
Gaster, B. & Holroyd, J. (2000) St John's wort for depression. A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160, 152–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halama, P. (1991) Wirksamkeit des Hypericum-Extraktes L1 160 bei 50 Patienten einer psychiatrischen Fachpraxis. Nervenheilkunde, 10, 305–307.Google Scholar
Hammerness, P., Basch, E., Ulbricht, C., et al (2003) St John's wort: a systematic review of adverse effects and drug interactions for the consultation psychiatrist. Psychosomatics, 44, 271–282.Google Scholar
Hänsgen, K. D. & Vesper, J. (1996) Antidepressive Wirksamkeit eines hochdosierten Hypericum-Extraktes. Münchener Medizinische Wochenschift, 138, 29–33.Google Scholar
Häring, B., Hauns, B., Hermann, C., et al (1996) A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of LI 160 in combination with chemotherapy in patients with solid tumors. Phytomedicine, 3 (suppl. 1), SL–88.Google Scholar
Harrer, G., Hübner, W. D. & Podzuweit, H. (1993) Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit des Hypericum-Präparates L1160 im Vergleich mit Maprotilin. Multizentrische Doppelblindstudie mit 102 depressiven Patienten. Nervenheilkunde, 12, 297–301.Google Scholar
Harrer, G., Schmidt, U., Kuhn, U., et al (1999) Comparison of equivalence between the St John's wort extract LoHyp-57 and fluoxetine. Arzneimittel Forschung/Drug Research, 49, 289–296.Google Scholar
Harrer, G., Schmidt, U. & Kuhn, U. (1991) ‘Alternative’ Depressionsbehandlung mit einem Hypericum-Extrakt. TW Neurologie, 5, 710–716.Google Scholar
Herberg, K. W. (1991) Fahrtüchtig trotz Einnahme eines Sedativums? Randomisierte, doppelblinde Untersuchung versus Plazebo. Therapiewoche, 41, 1039–1042.Google Scholar
Higgins, S. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327, 557–560.Google Scholar
Hiller, K. O. & Rahlfs, V. (1995) Therapeutische Aquivalenz eines hochdosierten Phytopharmakons mit Amitriptylin bei ängstlich-depressiven Verstimmungen – Reanalyse einer randomisierten Studie unter besonderer Beachtung biometrischer und klinischer Aspekte. Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 2, 123–132.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, J. & Kühl, E. D. (1979) Therapie von depressiven Zuständen mit Hypericin. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin, 55, 776–782.Google ScholarPubMed
Hottenrott, K., Sommer, H. M., Lehrl, S., et al (1997) Der Einfluss von Vitamin E und Johanniskraut-Trockenextrakt auf die Ausdauerleistungsfähigkeit von Wettkampfsportlern. Eine placebo-kontrollierte Doppelblindstudie mit Langstreckenläufern und Triathleten. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 48, 22–27.Google Scholar
Hübner, W. D., Lande, S. & Podzuweit, H. (1993) Behandlung larvierter Depressionen mit Johanniskraut. Nervenheilkunde, 12, 278–280.Google Scholar
Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group (2002) Effect of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) in major depressive disorder – a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 287, 1807–1814.Google Scholar
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D., Siebenhüner, G., Hofer, E., et al (1992) Einfluss von Johanniskraut auf die ZNS-Aktivität. Neurol Psychiatr, 6, 436–444.Google Scholar
Johnson, D., Ksciuk, H., Woelk, H., et al (1993) Wirkungen mit Johanniskraut-Extrakt LI 160 im Vergleich mit Maprotilin auf Ruhe-EEG und evozierte Potentiale bei 24 Probanden. Nervenheilkunde, 12, 328–330.Google Scholar
Josey, E. S. & Tacket, R. L. (1999) St John's wort: a new alternative for depression? International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 37, 111–119.Google ScholarPubMed
Kalb, R., Trautmann-Sponsel, R. D. & Kieser, M. (2001) Efficacy and tolerability of hypericum extract WS 5572 versus placebo in mildly to moderately depressed patients. Pharmacopsychiatry, 34, 96–103.Google Scholar
Khan, A., Warner, H. A. & Brown, W. A. (2000) Symptom reduction and suicide risk in patients treated with placebo in antidepressant clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 311–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirsch, I., Moore, T. J., Scoboria, A., et al (2002) The emperor's new drugs: an analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prevention and Treatment, 5, 23 (http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knüppel, L. & Linde, K. (2004) Adverse effects of St John's wort – a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65, 1470–1479.Google Scholar
König, C. (1993) Hypericum perforatum L. (Gemeines Johanniskraut) als Therapeutikum bei depressiven Verstimmungszuständen – eine Alternative zu synthetischen Arzneimitteln? Thesis, University of Basel.Google Scholar
Kugler, J., Schmidt, A., Groll, S., et al (1990a) Zur Pharmakodynamik eines Hypericum-Extraktes. Untersuchungen bei Patienten mitdepressiven Zuständen im Vergleich zu Bromazepam und Placebo. Zeitschrift fürAllgemeinmedizin, 66, 13–20.Google Scholar
Kugler, J., Weidenhammer, W., Schmidt, A., et al (1990b) Therapie depressiver Zustände. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin, 66, 21–29.Google Scholar
Laakmann, G., Schüle, C., Baghai, T., et al (1998) St John's wort in mild to moderate depression: the relevance of hyperforin for the clinical efficacy. Phamacopsychiatry, 31, 54–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lecrubier, Y., Clerc, G., Didi, R., et al (2002) Efficacy of St John's wort extract WS 5570 in major depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 59, 1361–1366.Google Scholar
Lehrl, S. & Woelk, H. (1993) Ergebnisse von Messungen der kognitiven Leistungsfähigkeit bei Patienten unter der Therapie mit Johanniskraut. Nervenheilkunde, 12, 281–284.Google Scholar
Lenoir, S., Degenring, F. H. & Saller, R. (1999) A double-blind randomised trial to investigate three different concentrations of a standardised fresh plant extract obtained from the shoot tips of Hypericum perforatum L. Phytomedicine, 6, 141–146.Google Scholar
Linde, K. & Mulrow, C. D. (1998) St John's wort for depression (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Library, issue 4. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
Linde, K., Ramirez, G., Mulrow, C. D., et al (1996) St John's wort for depression – an overview and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ, 313, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linde, K., Jonas, W. B., Melchart, D., et al (2001) The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 526–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maisenbacher, J., Schmidt, U. & Schenk, N. (1995) Therapie mit Hypericum bei Angstzuständen. Therapiewoche Neurologie Psychiatrie, 9, 65–70.Google Scholar
Martinez, B., Kasper, S., Ruhrmann, B., et al (1993) Hypericum in der Behandlung von saisonal abhängigen Depressionen. Nervenheilkunde, 12, 302–307.Google Scholar
Montgomery, S. A., Hübner, W. D. & Grigoleit, H. G. (2000) Efficacy and tolerability of St John's wort extract compared with placebo in patients with a mild to moderate depressive disorder. Phytomedicine, 7 (suppl. 2), 107.Google Scholar
Murck, H. (2002) Die atypische Depression und verwandte Erkrankungen – neurobiologische Grundlagen fur ihre Behandlung mit Johanniskraut-Extrakt. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift, 152, 398–403.Google Scholar
Osterheider, M., Schmidtke, A. & Beckmann, H. (1992) Behandlung depressiver Syndrome mit Hypericum (Johanniskraut) – eine placebokontrollierte Doppelblindstudie. Fortschritte der Neurologie Psychiatrie, 60 (suppl. 2): 210–211.Google Scholar
Panijel, J. (1985) Die Behandlung mittelschwerer Angstzustände. Therapiewoche, 41, 4659–4668.Google Scholar
Philipp, M., Kohnen, R. & Hiller, K. O. (1999) Hypericum extract versus imipramine or placeboin patients with moderate depression: randomised multicentre study of treatment for eight weeks. BMJ, 319, 1534–1539.Google Scholar
Quandt, J., Schmidt, U. & Schenk, N. (1993) Ambulante Behandlung leichter und mittelschwerer depressiver Verstimmungen. Der Allgemeinarzt, 2, 97–102.Google Scholar
Reh, C., Laux, P. & Schenk, N. (1992) Hypericum-Extrakt bei Depressionen – eine wirksame Alternative. Therapiewoche, 42, 1576–1581.Google Scholar
Schlich, D., Braukmann, F. & Schenk, N. (1987) Behandlung depressiver Zustände mit Hypericinium. Psycho, 13, 440–447.Google Scholar
Schmidt, U. & Sommer, H. (1993) Johanniskraut-Extrakt zur ambulanten Therapie der Depression. Fortschritte der Medizin, 111, 339–342.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, U., Schenk, N., Schwarz, I., et al (1989) Zur Therapie depressiver Verstimmungen. Psycho, 15, 665–671.Google Scholar
Schmidt, U., Harrer, G., Kuhn, U., et al (1993) Wechselwirkungen von Hypericin-Extrakt mit Alkohol. Nervenheilkunde, 12, 314–319.Google Scholar
Schrader, E. (2000) Equivalence of St John's wort extract (Ze 117) and fluoxetine: a randomized, controlled studyin mild–moderate depression. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15, 61–68.Google Scholar
Schrader, E., Meier, B. & Brattström, A. (1998) Hypericum treatment of mild–moderate depression in a placebo-controlled study. A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Human Psychopharmacology, 13, 163–169.Google Scholar
Schulz, H. & Jobert, M. (1993) Der Einfluss von Johanniskraut auf das Schlaf-EEG bei älteren Probandinnen. Nervenheilkunde, 12, 323–327.Google Scholar
Shelton, R. C., Keller, M. B., Gelenberg, A., et al (2001) Effectiveness of St John's wort in major depression. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 285, 1978–1986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sindrup, S. H., Madsen, C., Bach, F. W., et al (2000) St John's wort has no effect on pain in polyneuropathy. Pain, 91, 361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, H. & Harrer, G. (1994) Placebo-controlled doub e-blind study examining the effectiveness of an hypericum preparation in 105 mildly depressed patients. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 7 (suppl. 1), S9–S11.Google Scholar
Spielberger, E. (1985) Johanniskraut-Präparat lindert selbstmittelschwere Depressionen Ärztliche Praxis, 37, 2546–2547.Google Scholar
Staffeldt, B., Kerb, R., Brockmöller, J., et al (1993) Pharmakokinetik von Hypericin und Pseudohypericin nach oraler Einnahme des Johanniskraut-Extrakts LI 160 bei gesunden Probanden. Nervenheilkunde, 12, 331–336.Google Scholar
Steger, W. (1985) Depressive Verstimmungen. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin, 61, 914–918.Google Scholar
Sterne, J. A. C., Gavaghan, D. J. & Egger, M. (2000) Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 1119–1129.Google Scholar
Sterne, J. A., Egger, M. & Davey Smith, G. (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ, 323, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, S. G. & Sharp, S. J. (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: acomparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 2693–2708.Google Scholar
Van Gurp, G., Meterissian, G. B., Haiek, L. N., et al (2002) St John's wort or sertraline? Randomized controlled trial in primary care. Canadian Family Physician, 48, 905–912.Google Scholar
Volz, H. P. (1997) Controlled clinical trials of Hypericum extracts in depressed patients – an overview. Pharmacopsychiatry, 30 (suppl. 2): 72–76.Google Scholar
Volz, H. P., Eberhardt, R. & Grill, G. (2000) Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit des Johanniskrautextraktes D-0496 bei leichten bis mittelschweren depressiven Episoden – plazebokontrollierte Doppelblindstudie über 6 Wochen. Nervenheilkunde, 19, 401–405.Google Scholar
Volz, H. P., Murck, H., Kasper, S., et al (2002) St John's wort extract (LI 160) in somatoform disorders: results of a placebo-controlled trial. Psychopharmacology, 164, 294–300.Google Scholar
Vorbach, E. U., Hübner, W. D. & Arnoldt, K. H. (1994) Effectiveness and tolerance of the hypericum extract LI 160 in comparison with imipramine: randomized double-blind study with 135 outpatients. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 7 (suppl. 1), S19–S23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vorbach, E. U., Arnoldt, K. H. & Hübner, W. D. (1997) Efficacy and tolerability of St John's wort extract LI 160 versus imipramine in patients with severe depressive episodes according to ICD–10. Pharmacopsychiatry, 30 (suppl. 2): 81–85.Google Scholar
Walsh, B. T., Seidman, S. N., Sysko, R., et al (2002) Placebo response in studies of major depression-variable, substantial, and growing. JAMA, 287, 1840–1847.Google Scholar
Warnecke, G. (1986) Beeinflussung klimakterischer Depressionen. Zeitschrift fürAllgemeinmedizin, 62, 1111–1113.Google Scholar
Werth, W. (1989) Psychotonin M versus imipramin in der Chirurgie. Der Kassenarzt, 15, 64–68.Google Scholar
Wheatley, D. (1997) L1160, an extract of St John's wort, versus amitriptyline in mildly to moderately depressed outpatients – acontrolled 6-weekclinical trial. Pharmacopsychiatry, 30 (suppl. 2): 77–80.Google Scholar
Williams, J. W., Mulrow, C. D., Chiquette, E., et al (2000) A systematic review on newer pharmacotherapies for depression in adults, evidence report summary. Annals of Internal Medicine, 132, 743–756.Google Scholar
Winkel, R., Koritsch, H. D., Piayda, H., et al (2000) St John's wort extract LI 160 in depressive, alcohol addicted patients. Phytomedicine, 7 (suppl. 2), 19.Google Scholar
Witte, B., Harrer, G., Kaptan, T., et al (1995) Behandlung depressiver Verstimmungen mit einem hochkonzentrierten Hypericumpräparat – eine multizentrische plazebokontrollierte Doppelblindstudie. Fortschritte der Medizin, 113, 404–408.Google Scholar
Woelk, H. (2000) Comparison of St John's wort and imipramine for treating depression: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 321, 536–539.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1977) Manual of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD–9). Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1993) The ICD–10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
Wurglics, M., Schulte-Löbbert, S., Dingermann, T., et al (2003) Rationale und traditionelle Johanniskrautpräparate. Deutscher Apotheker Zeitung, 143, 1454–1457.Google Scholar
Zeller, K. (2000) Once daily administration of Hypericum extract (STW 3): a convenient treatment. In: Herbal Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Pain (eds H. Chrubasik & B. D. Roufogalis), pp. 164–168. Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1Selection of reported trials for comparison.

Figure 1

Table 1Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of Hypericum perforatum extracts in patients with depression

Figure 2

Table 2Characteristics of 26 placebo-controlled trials of Hypericum extract monopreparations for depression, comparing trials published in different periods

Figure 3

Fig. 2Funnel plot of 23 placebo-controlled trials of Hypericum extract in depression, stratified by type of depression (○, studies in major depression; •, studies not restricted to major depression).

Figure 4

Fig. 3Response to Hypericum extracts in depression. Results (fixed-effects model) from placebo-controlled trials stratified by type of depression (major and other) and study size (above and below median of variance). Studies identified by first author and year (HDTSG, Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group; n, number of responders; N, number of patients per group; RR, response rate ratio).

Figure 5

Fig. 4Response rates over time to (a) Hypericum perforatum extracts and (b) placebo, from 34 active and 22 placebo trial arms.

Figure 6

Table 3Double-blind comparisons of Hypericum perforatum extract and standard antidepressants; all trials except that of Vorbach et al (1994) were restricted to patients meeting ICD-10 or DSM criteria for major depression

Figure 7

Fig. 5Response to Hypericum perforatum extracts in depression: results from controlled trials stratified by type of comparison drug. Studies identified by first author and year (HDTSG, Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group; n, number of responders; N, number of patients per group; RR, response rate ratio).

Figure 8

Fig. 6Number of patients withdrawing from the trials because of adverse effects: results from controlled trials stratified by type of comparison drug. Studies identified by first author and year (n, number of responders; N, number of patients per group; OR, odds ratio).

This journal is not currently accepting new eletters.

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.