Cargando…

Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence

Flavonoids are oral venoactive drugs frequently prescribed to relieve the symptoms of chronic venous disorders (CVD). Among venoactive drugs, diosmin is a naturally occurring flavonoid glycoside that can be isolated from various plant sources; it can also be obtained after conversion of hesperidin e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cazaubon, Michèle, Benigni, Jean-Patrick, Steinbruch, Marcio, Jabbour, Violaine, Gouhier-Kodas, Christelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8455100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34556990
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S324112
_version_ 1784570603568627712
author Cazaubon, Michèle
Benigni, Jean-Patrick
Steinbruch, Marcio
Jabbour, Violaine
Gouhier-Kodas, Christelle
author_facet Cazaubon, Michèle
Benigni, Jean-Patrick
Steinbruch, Marcio
Jabbour, Violaine
Gouhier-Kodas, Christelle
author_sort Cazaubon, Michèle
collection PubMed
description Flavonoids are oral venoactive drugs frequently prescribed to relieve the symptoms of chronic venous disorders (CVD). Among venoactive drugs, diosmin is a naturally occurring flavonoid glycoside that can be isolated from various plant sources; it can also be obtained after conversion of hesperidin extracted from citrus rinds. Micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) is a preparation that contains mainly diosmin and a small fraction of hesperidin. We performed a state-of-the-art literature review to collect and analyze well-conducted randomized clinical studies comparing diosmin – also called non-micronized or hemisynthetic diosmin – 600 mg a day and MPFF, 1000 mg a day. Three clinical studies met the criteria and were included for this literature review. These clinical studies showed a significant decrease of CVD symptom intensity (up to approximately 50%) and global patient satisfaction after one-to-six-month treatment with diosmin or MPFF, without statistical differences between these two forms of diosmin. Both treatments were well tolerated with few mild adverse drug reactions reported. Overall, based on this literature review, there is no clinical benefit to increase the dose of diosmin beyond 600 mg per day, to use the micronized form, or to add hesperidin, since clinical efficacy on venous symptomatology is achieved with 600 mg per day of pure non-micronized diosmin. This challenges the status of diosmin – 600 mg a day – in guidelines for the management of CVD, which is currently categorized 2C (weak recommendations for use and poor quality of evidence), while the most widely used and assessed preparation MPFF is rated 1B (strong recommendation for use and moderate quality of evidence).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8455100
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84551002021-09-22 Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence Cazaubon, Michèle Benigni, Jean-Patrick Steinbruch, Marcio Jabbour, Violaine Gouhier-Kodas, Christelle Vasc Health Risk Manag Review Flavonoids are oral venoactive drugs frequently prescribed to relieve the symptoms of chronic venous disorders (CVD). Among venoactive drugs, diosmin is a naturally occurring flavonoid glycoside that can be isolated from various plant sources; it can also be obtained after conversion of hesperidin extracted from citrus rinds. Micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) is a preparation that contains mainly diosmin and a small fraction of hesperidin. We performed a state-of-the-art literature review to collect and analyze well-conducted randomized clinical studies comparing diosmin – also called non-micronized or hemisynthetic diosmin – 600 mg a day and MPFF, 1000 mg a day. Three clinical studies met the criteria and were included for this literature review. These clinical studies showed a significant decrease of CVD symptom intensity (up to approximately 50%) and global patient satisfaction after one-to-six-month treatment with diosmin or MPFF, without statistical differences between these two forms of diosmin. Both treatments were well tolerated with few mild adverse drug reactions reported. Overall, based on this literature review, there is no clinical benefit to increase the dose of diosmin beyond 600 mg per day, to use the micronized form, or to add hesperidin, since clinical efficacy on venous symptomatology is achieved with 600 mg per day of pure non-micronized diosmin. This challenges the status of diosmin – 600 mg a day – in guidelines for the management of CVD, which is currently categorized 2C (weak recommendations for use and poor quality of evidence), while the most widely used and assessed preparation MPFF is rated 1B (strong recommendation for use and moderate quality of evidence). Dove 2021-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8455100/ /pubmed/34556990 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S324112 Text en © 2021 Cazaubon et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Cazaubon, Michèle
Benigni, Jean-Patrick
Steinbruch, Marcio
Jabbour, Violaine
Gouhier-Kodas, Christelle
Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence
title Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence
title_full Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence
title_fullStr Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence
title_full_unstemmed Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence
title_short Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence
title_sort is there a difference in the clinical efficacy of diosmin and micronized purified flavonoid fraction for the treatment of chronic venous disorders? review of available evidence
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8455100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34556990
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S324112
work_keys_str_mv AT cazaubonmichele isthereadifferenceintheclinicalefficacyofdiosminandmicronizedpurifiedflavonoidfractionforthetreatmentofchronicvenousdisordersreviewofavailableevidence
AT benignijeanpatrick isthereadifferenceintheclinicalefficacyofdiosminandmicronizedpurifiedflavonoidfractionforthetreatmentofchronicvenousdisordersreviewofavailableevidence
AT steinbruchmarcio isthereadifferenceintheclinicalefficacyofdiosminandmicronizedpurifiedflavonoidfractionforthetreatmentofchronicvenousdisordersreviewofavailableevidence
AT jabbourviolaine isthereadifferenceintheclinicalefficacyofdiosminandmicronizedpurifiedflavonoidfractionforthetreatmentofchronicvenousdisordersreviewofavailableevidence
AT gouhierkodaschristelle isthereadifferenceintheclinicalefficacyofdiosminandmicronizedpurifiedflavonoidfractionforthetreatmentofchronicvenousdisordersreviewofavailableevidence