Phytomedicine has often been used as "alternative therapy," which in our opinion is unfortunate as it prevents its main actions being systematically studied, side effects explored, and toxicity tested, like all single-compound-based medicine. Our group is interested in finding which traditional or modern phytomedicines actually work and which are simply "working" through placebo, standardizing phytomedicine preparations, studying their toxicity, and finding active molecules in plants for modification and chemical synthesis as single compounds. Although fluctuation in efficacy due to seasonal and geographical variations in phytomedicine remains a concern, if well regulated, even plant extracts without isolated compounds can serve medicinal needs where single-compound options are currently not great. A potential concern with such phytomedicine is frequent mixing of ingredients in commercial formulations without test of synergism. Our study on the use of 2 traditional plants for Parkinson disease shows a clear lack of synergism, and to study nonsynergism better, we developed a new visualization approach. In this commentary, using our study on Parkinson disease as an example, we make a case for better evaluation of phytomedicines, especially testing for synergistic interactions. We also critique our own exploration of oxidative stress and few behavioral parameters alone to lay grounds for what we and hopefully others can do in future to extract more information from their phytomedicine studies. We hope this commentary acts as a good warning for anyone mixing 2 phytomedicines without testing.
Keywords: Centella asiatica; Parkinson disease; Withania somnifera; data visualization; dopamine; drug discovery; oxidative stress; phytomedicine.