German rheumatology group expands phytotherapy review

A new abstract in Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie shows the German Society for Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology’s committee on complementary medicine and nutrition has extended its phytotherapy review to 13 additional medicinal plants and herbal preparations used in rheumatology. The update follows the group’s first phytotherapy recommendations, published in early 2025, and reflects continued demand from patients for herbal and “natural” treatment options in chronic musculoskeletal and inflammatory disease care. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

This didn’t come out of nowhere. DGRh’s committee has been working through complementary medicine topics for several years, first publishing recommendations on areas such as diet and other nonpharmacologic approaches, then turning to phytotherapy as a distinct workstream. The committee’s own activity reports show that the first phytotherapy set covered products such as borage oil, nettle, cannabis, Phytodolor, rose hip, rosemary, saffron, and willow bark, while the second round was developed afterward to address additional herbs commonly marketed or discussed in rheumatology. (dgrh.de)

The newly added group appears to include comfrey, arnica, curcuma, ginger, cat’s claw, garlic, cabbage leaves, milk thistle, pycnogenol, horsetail, devil’s claw, frankincense, and Tripterygium wilfordii, based on the DGRh committee page. The abstract indicates the committee reviewed the scientific literature for these agents and assessed their possible role in rheumatology, continuing the same evidence-review framework used in the earlier publication. (dgrh.de)

That earlier publication is important context because it set the tone for how DGRh is handling herbal medicine overall. In a 2024 press release tied to the first recommendations, the society said evidence was insufficient to support medicinal cannabis for inflammatory rheumatic diseases as either disease-modifying or symptomatic therapy, though it allowed there may be select exceptions for chronic, especially neuropathic, pain and sleep problems. The same release said some preparations, including nettle, willow bark, rose hip, and one mixed herbal product, did not require routine discouragement if patients were also receiving appropriate standard therapy. DGRh leadership also emphasized that herbal medicines are not risk-free and should not replace foundational treatment. (dgrh.de)

I didn’t find substantial independent expert commentary specifically reacting to this 13-plant extension, but DGRh’s own public statements and committee materials suggest the society is trying to strike a middle ground: acknowledging patient interest while keeping recommendations tightly linked to clinical evidence and known harms. That’s consistent with broader German phytotherapy infrastructure as well, where herbal medicines are treated as a scientific and regulatory category rather than simply as wellness products. (phytotherapie.de)

Why it matters: For veterinary teams, this is a human-medicine development, not a veterinary guideline. Still, it’s relevant because the same questions show up in practice every day: pet parents ask whether turmeric, frankincense, ginger, devil’s claw, cannabis-derived products, or other botanicals can help with arthritis, chronic pain, or inflammatory disease. The DGRh effort reinforces a practical message veterinarians already know well: interest in herbal products is high, but evidence is uneven, product quality varies, and “natural” doesn’t guarantee safety. That matters for adverse-event counseling, drug-supplement interaction screening, and maintaining adherence to proven therapies. (dgrh.de)

For the animal health industry, the more interesting signal may be methodological. A major specialty society is not dismissing phytotherapy outright, but it is forcing individual plants and preparations through an evidence review rather than treating the category as a whole. That kind of plant-by-plant scrutiny is likely to feel familiar to veterinary clinicians evaluating supplements for osteoarthritis, dermatology, or chronic inflammatory conditions, where formulation, dose, species differences, and toxicology can matter more than consumer perception. This is an inference based on the society’s review structure and messaging, rather than an explicit veterinary recommendation. (dgrh.de)

What to watch: The next step is the full paper or related DGRh web guidance that spells out the evidence and recommendations for each of the 13 added botanicals. Veterinary professionals should watch for which agents were viewed as potentially useful adjuncts, which were judged ineffective, and which raised enough safety concern to warrant caution or avoidance. (dgrh.de)