Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 6 · Randomised trials: 1 · 1985–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Megharaj K. V., Veera Shekhar T, M. Pavithra, et al.
Research Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics, 2025
F Dantas, H Rampes
British Homeopathic Journal, 2000
L Long, E Ernst
British Homeopathic Journal, 2001
Neha Sharma A, Devi S
World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2024
TW Robinson
British Homeopathic Journal, 2001
Juveriya Naaz N. Bhusnur, Mariyam Roqaiya, M. Siddiqui, et al.
2018
Marcondes Rafael, L. Barros, Ana Maria Carvalho, et al.
Industrial Crops and Products, 2011
Irene Gouvinhas, Maria José Saavedra, Maria José Alves, et al.
Pharmaceuticals, 2025
Background/Objectives: The health benefits of Tamus communis fruits have been associated with their high phenolic content, which comprises several flavonoids. However, the extraction methods might significantly impact these valuable compounds’ bioactivity. Therefore, the current study assesses how different extraction techniques affect T. communis extracts’ antioxidant, anti-aging, antimicrobial, cytotoxic, anti-inflammatory, and phenolic contents. Methods: Conventional method (TCE-CM) and ultrasound-assisted extraction (TCE-UM) were the methods employed. Results: The increased phenolic content of TCE-UM, particularly flavonoids and phenolic acids, was demonstrated to be a contributing factor to its higher biological activity. Key enzymes linked to dermatological conditions, such as elastase, collagenase, hyaluronidase, and tyrosinase, were significantly inhibited by both extracts at 1 mg/mL; TCE-UM showed the highest tyrosinase inhibition (65.61 ± 5.21%) compared to TCE-CM (21.78 ± 2.19%). TCE-UM also demonstrated exceptional antibacterial performance, showing notable antibiofilm and metabolic inactivation effects and potent activity against pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Candida albicans. Both extracts showed concentration-dependent anti-inflammatory properties; TCE-UM had a lower IC50 value (26.46 ± 2.30%) in nitric oxide inhibition tests, suggesting stronger anti-inflammatory capabilities. Conclusions: These findings underscore the superior bioactivity of TCE-UM and suggest that ultrasonic extraction is a more efficient method for isolating bioactive phenolic compounds from T. communis fruits, presenting promising applications in anti-aging and antimicrobial formulations.
Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0
M. Campos, E. Kelley, B. Gravendeel, et al.
Annals of botany, 2023
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.