Multiple Dosing of Ephedra-Free Dietary Supplements: Hemodynamic, Electrocardiographic, and Bacterial Contamination Effects

Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, College of Health Professions University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Clinical Pharmacology &#38 Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 7.9). 12/2012; 93(3). DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2012.241
Source: PubMed


Four popular ephedra-free dietary supplements were evaluated for their effects on heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and electrocardiographic (ECG) parameters. Twelve healthy men participated in a study randomized for product sequence, with a 21-day washout period between supplement-administration phases. Throughout the study, Holter monitors were used to assess ECG and HR activity. BP was assessed automatically on multiple occasions. The supplements were ingested three times daily for 3 days. Caffeine content, microbial load, and serum caffeine concentrations were determined. Mean systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) readings showed significant increases relative to baseline (10.8 ± 2.5 and 5.3 ± 3.1 mm Hg, respectively; P < 0.05). All supplements significantly increased HR and decreased bradycardia runs; abnormal atrial/ventricular events were frequently noted. Gastrointestinal and sympathomimetic symptoms were also common. Two supplements were heavily contaminated with Bacillus species. In light of these findings, the use of ephedra-free dietary supplements should be discouraged in individuals with hypertension, diabetes, or other cardiovascular diseases.Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2013); advance online publication 30 January 2013. doi:10.1038/clpt.2012.241.

Download full-text


Available from: Ashraf A Khan, Apr 01, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The findings regarding cardiovascular actions of dietary supplements labeled as "ephedra free" reported by Foster et al. in the March issue reaffirm decades of research that began in the 1920s with K.K. Chen's study of naturally occurring adrenergic chemicals. Although the study by Foster et al. provides scientifically sound data needed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as it evaluates the safety of these products, we should ask, "Why was it necessary that these chemicals be studied again for their cardiovascular actions in humans?"
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2013 · Clinical Pharmacology &#38 Therapeutics
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Our objective was to review the history, safety, and efficacy of caffeine-containing dietary supplements in the United States and Canada. Methods: PubMed and Web of Science databases (1980-2014) were searched for articles related to the pharmacology, toxicology, and efficacy of caffeine-containing dietary supplements with an emphasis on Ephedra-containing supplements, Ephedra-free supplements, and energy drinks or shots. Findings: Among the first and most successful dietary supplements to be marketed in the United States were those containing Ephedra—combinations of ephedrine alkaloids, caffeine, and other phytochemicals. A decade after their inception, serious tolerability concerns prompted removal of Ephedra supplements from the US and Canadian markets. Ephedra-free products, however, quickly filled this void. Ephedra-free supplements typically contain multiple caffeine sources in conjunction with other botanical extracts whose purposes can often be puzzling and their pharmacologic properties difficult to predict. Ingestion of these products in the form of tablets, capsules, or other solid dosage forms as weight loss aids, exercise performance enhancers, or energy boosters have once again brought their tolerability and efficacy into question. In addition to Ephedra-free solid dosage forms, caffeine-containing energy drinks have gained a foothold in the world market along with concerns about their tolerability. Implications: This review addresses some of the pharmacologic and pharmaceutical issues that distinguish caffeine-containing dietary supplement formulations from traditional caffeine-containing beverages. Such distinctions may account for the increasing tolerability concerns affiliated with these products.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2014 · Clinical Therapeutics