French Maritime Pine Bark Extract

Conclusion: There is moderate-certainty evidence that phlebotonics probably reduce oedema slightly, compared to placebo; moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in QoL; and low-certainty evidence that these drugs do not influence ulcer healing. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that phlebotonics are probably associated with a higher risk of adverse events than placebo. Studies included in this systematic review provided only short-term safety data; therefore, the medium- and long-term safety of phlebotonics could not be estimated. Findings for specific groups of phlebotonics are limited

Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence shows that phlebotonics may have beneficial effects on oedema and on some signs and symptoms related to CVI such as trophic disorders, cramps, restless legs, swelling and paraesthesia when compared with placebo but can produce more adverse effects. Phlebotonics showed no differences compared with placebo in ulcer healing. Additional high-quality RCTs focused on clinically important outcomes are needed to improve the evidence base.

Conclusion: Current evidence is insufficient to support Pycnogenol(®) use for the treatment of any chronic disorder. Well-designed, adequately powered trials are needed to establish the value of this treatment.

Conclusion: There is not enough evidence to globally support the efficacy of phlebotonics for chronic venous insufficiency. There is a suggestion of some efficacy of phlebotonics on oedema but this is of uncertain clinical relevance. Due to the limitations of current evidence, there is a need for further randomised, controlled clinical trials with greater attention paid to methodological quality.