In 1789, the Annonaceae family was catalogued by de Jussieu. It encompasses tropical and subtropical plants which are widespread in distribution across various continents such as Asia, South and Central America, Australia and Africa. The genus of Annona is one of 120 genera of the Annonaceae family and contains more than 119 species of trees and shrubs. Most species are found in tropical America, where over 105 species have been identified. Due to its edible fruits and medicinal properties, Annona is the most studied genus of Annonaceae family. To date, only a limited number of these species have economic value, including A. squamosa L. (sugar apple), A. cherimola Mill. (Cherimoya), A. muricata L. (guanabana or soursop), A. atemoya Mabb. (atemoya), a hybrid between A. cherimola and A. squamosa, A. reticulata L. (custard apple), A. glabra L. (pond-apple) and A. macroprophyllata Donn. Sm. (ilama). Phytochemically, several classes of secondary metabolites, including acetogenins, essential oils, alkaloids, terpenoids and flavonoids. The pharmacological activities of Annona species leaves and seeds include antibacterial, anticancer, antidiabetic and anti-inflammatory properties.

Natural products, also referred to as dietary supplements, complementary and alternative medicines, and health or food supplements are widely used by people living with cancer. These products are predominantly self-selected and taken concurrently with cancer treatments with the intention of improving quality of life, immune function and reducing cancer symptoms and treatment side effects. Concerns have been raised that concurrent use may lead to interactions resulting in adverse effects and unintended treatment outcomes. This review provides an overview of the mechanisms by which these interactions can occur and the current evidence about specific clinically important natural product–drug interactions. Clinical studies investigating pharmacokinetic interactions provide evidence that negative treatment outcomes may occur when Hypericum perforatum, Grapefruit, Schisandra sphenanthera, Curcuma longa or Hydrastis canadensis are taken concurrently with common cancer treatments. Conversely, pharmacodynamic interactions between Hangeshashinto (TJ-14) and some cancer treatments have been shown to reduce the side effects of diarrhoea and oral mucositis. In summary, research in this area is limited and requires further investigation.

Background. There is limited research investigating the composition of the gastrointestinal microbiota in individuals with celiac disease (CoeD) reporting only partial symptom improvement despite adherence to a strict gluten‐free diet (GFD). The aim of this research was to determine if the gastrointestinal microbiota could be altered by probiotic bacteria and provide a potential new therapy for this subgroup. Methods. A multicentre RCT was conducted between January and August 2011 in Australia. Participants included 45 people with CoeD reporting only partial symptom improvement despite adherence to a strict GFD for a minimum of 12 months. Participants took 5 g of VSL#™ probiotic formulation (n = 23) or 5 g placebo (n = 22) orally twice daily for 12 weeks. The main outcome measured was the efficacy of the probiotic formula in altering faecal microbiota counts between baseline and week 12. Safety was determined by safety blood and monitoring adverse events. Results. SPSS™ multivariate repeated measures analysis (95th confidence level) revealed no statistically significant changes between the groups in the faecal microbiota counts or blood safety measures over the course of the study. Conclusion. The probiotic formula when taken orally over the 12‐week period did not significantly alter the microbiota measured in this population. The trial was registered with Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12610000630011.

Objectives: To provide a contemporary description of complementary medicine (CM) product use in Australia.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Setting: Online.Participants: A nationally representative sample (n=2019) of the Australian adult population.Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcomes measures included the use and type of CM products used, and source of recommendation. Secondary measures included disclosure of CM product use to health practitioners, concomitant use of pharmaceuticals and predictors of use.Results: Prevalence of CM product use was 50.3%, with the most frequently used being vitamin and mineral supplements (VMSs; 47.8%) and homoeopathic medicines the least used (6.8%). A majority of respondents using CM products were also using pharmaceutical products, and small but significant associations were found between the use of CM products and pharmaceuticals (p<0.05). Small statistically significant associations were found between use of vitamin products and disclosure of use to general practitioners (GPs; Cramer’s V=0.13, p=0.004) and hospital doctors (Cramer’s V=0.11, p=0.04), and between use of herbal medicines and disclosure to both GPs (Cramer’s V=0.11, p=0.02) and hospital doctors (Cramer’s V=0.12, p=0.03). Women, those with higher education and those with no private health insurance were more likely to use CM products (p<0.05), while those without chronic conditions were less likely to use CM products (p<0.05) (χ²(29)=174.70, p<0.001).Conclusions: The number of Australians using CM products has remained relatively stable and substantial for nearly two decades. The majority of CM use relates to VMSs. Given the number of Australians using both CM products and pharmaceutical medicines, it is important to evaluate the potential clinical implications of such practices to ensure safe, effective and coordinated health policy and patient care.

Objectives Annona muricata, also known as graviola, soursop and guanabana, has been widely utilised for the treatment of a range of cancers. The mechanism of action and the efficacy of A. muricata and its constituents in the treatment of cancer have been comprehensively reviewed. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available literature that reports on factors related to the safety and tolerability of A. muricata leaf extract and its acetogenins. Methods In‐vitro, preclinical animal studies and human studies of any design written in any language were included. Studies that evaluated A. muricata leaf extract and its constituents were searched through the databases Pubmed, Medline and Embase from inception to April 2019. The elaborated item 4 of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement and Animals in Research: Reporting In vivo Experiments guidelines were used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Key findings The results suggest that A. muricata and its constituents have hepatoprotective, neurotoxic, antinociceptive, anti‐ulcerative and chemopreventive effects. The dose and duration used in animal studies demonstrating toxicity may not directly translate into the effects in humans. Studies included in this review were judged to be of medium to high quality. Conclusions The overall outcome of the current review suggests that A. muricata has a favourable safety and tolerability profile. Future studies investigating its use in people diagnosed with a range of cancers are warranted.

Background and Objectives: People have multi-faceted health care needs and consult a diverse range of health care practitioners (HCP) from both the conventional and complementary medicine healthcare sectors. The effective communication between HCP and with patients are obvious requisites to coordinating multidisciplinary care and shared decision making. Further, miscommunication is a leading cause of patient harm and is associated with reduced patient satisfaction, health literacy, treatment compliance and quality of life. In conventional healthcare settings, the differences in professional hierarchy, training, communication styles and culture are recognised communication barriers. Less is known about interprofessional communication (IPC) that includes traditional and complementary medicine (TCM) HCP. This review aims to summarise the experiences and perceptions of conventional and complementary HCP and identify factors that influence IPC. Methods: A qualitative rapid literature review was conducted. Six databases were searched to identify original research and systematic reviews published since 2009 and in English. Excluded were articles reporting original research outside of Australia that did not include TCM-HCP, already cited in a systematic review, or of low quality with a score of less than three on a critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) checklist. A thematic analysis of included studies was used to identify and explore important and recurring themes. Results: From the conducted searches, 18 articles were included, 11 of which reported data on complementary HCP and seven were literature reviews. Four key themes were identified that impact IPC: medical dominance, clarity of HCP roles, a shared vision, and education and training. Conclusion: IPC within and between conventional and complementary HCP is impacted by interrelated factors. A diverse range of initiatives that facilitate interprofessional learning and collaboration are required to facilitate IPC and help overcome medical dominance and interprofessional cultural divides.