|
From Australia:
FIFTH QUEENSLAND POULTRY SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM
Gatton College, July 1996
CONCERNING EMU OIL AND ITS
POTENTIAL ANTI-ARTHRITIC ACTIVITY
Michael W Whitehouse 1, Peter B Ghosh 2 and Athol G
Turner 3
1. Department of Medicine, University of Queensland,
Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Q 4102 . .. . 2.
Department of Surgery, University of Sydney, Royal North Shore
Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065. . . . . . . . . 3. Department of
Chemistry, Sydney Institute of Technology, Ultimo, NSW 2007
SUMMARY:
This report provides some background material and
then briefly summarizes the evidence that Emu Oil contains active
principles that may be valuable for treating chronic inflammation,
based on experimental studies in rats with established polyarthritis.
BACKGROUND:
Traditional beliefs of geographically widely
separated Aboriginal communities agree on the beneficial properties
of Emu Oil as a natural remedy to reduce pain and stiffness in sore
muscles and joints. Documented records of this practice date back
well over 100 years, as cited in the US Patent (1) e.g. Leichardt
1847; Bennett 1860; Old bushman 1891. Apparently the oil must be
massaged vigorously on to the sore muscle or joint and the process
repeated as often as required: hence pressure, heat and duration of
rubbing are all relevant factors (2). For many affected tissues,
applying the raw oil in this form must itself be quite a painful
process.
Several commentators have asserted that the
pharmacological value of the oil is unproven, i.e. lacking
scientific investigation, on the ground but such information has not
been found in their literature searches. Sceptics might assert that
the transdermal (painful) application of the oil seems to resemble
the use of certain well-known counter-irritants such as capsaicin,
the pungent principle of red peppers (3), which transiently produce
local pain and/or inflammation but subsequently induce a
long-lasting state of pain relief (analgesia). Alternatively,
applying the oil might be considered merely a means of inducing a
'placebo effect' i.e. a non-specific 'comforting' response, since
there is data suggesting that some 40-60% of patients with soft
tissue and local joint disorders will respond to a placebo when
rubbed into the skin (4).
In recent years, topical formulations of some
well-established non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) have
been developed by the drug industry mainly to treat arthritis,
muscle sprains and soft tissue trauma (5,6). The use of this term
"Topical" may mean to treat the local inflammation by a simple local
application. It may also imply transdermal delivery of a drug
through the skin for it to have a systemic effect on some distant
tissues, other than the skin. For emu oil to seriously compete for
attention in the market place against these now heavily promoted,
transdermally-active NSAIDs, it is essential to establish that there
really are constituents in emu oil which can match these NSAIDs in
efficacy after dermal application.
These transdermal NSAIDs are now gaining acceptance
because they fulfill expectations of being able to 'perform', in as
much as the active NSAID is provided (I) in a known amount, (ii) in
a form known to fairly rapidly penetrate the skin and (iii) with
anticipated efficacy based on prior knowledge that it will control
both experimental and clinical inflammation when delivered by other
routes.
Emu oil (concentrates) need to match these topical
NSAIDs in all these respects if they are to gain maximum credibility
and (a) reclaim ground already lost to the new topical NSAID
formulations or (b) successfully capitalise on the general public's
growing acceptance that a transdermal agent may bring genuine relief
from systemic inflammatory/pain-generating disorders.
It should be noted that topical NSAIDs are not
entirely free from some of those side-effects (regularly seen after
their oral use), and in this respect they are not necessarily a
great advance on previous formulations of those same NSAIDs (see ref
7 for renal toxicity).
METHODOLOGY
The key to certifying the therapeutic value of the
emu oil is to have, and use, a well-controlled small animal model of
inflammatory disease that responds beneficially to known
anti-inflammatory drugs. Since any topically-administered agent may
be slow to penetrate through the skin, it is essential either to
apply the test medication well in advance of an experimentally
induced inflammation that has a rapid onset; or alternatively to use
an experimental model of inflammation that is slow-developing.
Extensive work at the Australian National University
(8), the University of Adelaide (9) and more recently at the
University of Queensland had indicated that the
experimentally-induced polyarthritis in rats, obtained by
inoculating a mycobaterial adjuvant (10) is well-suited to
evaluating the transdermal efficacy of both synthetic drugs and
certain natural products as significant anti-inflammatory agents. In
essence rats (from a susceptible strain) are given the adjuvant by
tail-base injection on day 0 and the disease is allowed to develop
until the first signs of arthritic inflammation are clearly
expressed, 10 to 12 days later. At this time the size of rear paws
and maximum tail thickness are measured with a micrometer, the
severity of inflammation in the front paws is given a score on a
arbitrary scale (0-4+) and the body weight is measured after shaving
an area of skin on the upper back of the rat, approx. 6 cm, just
below the neck. The test formulations are applied once daily for
four days and on the fifth day the signs of inflammation are
re-evaluated. Suppression of both the paw swelling and of the
disease-associated weight loss indicates successful treatment.
Animals are observed for a further three to four days, after
suspending treatment: nearly always there is a rebound in the signs
of arthritis in the successfully treated group. This indicates that
the drug is truly anti-inflammatory and that these treated animals
re not "false-positives" (in the sense of failing to respond to the
original arthritigen).
Feeble drugs such as methyl salicylate or aspirin
derivates show little activity when applied transdermally in doses <
150 mg/kg/day. Many NSAIDs are active at doses 1-20 mg/kg/day, but
may still cause some gastric bleeding even though given non-orally
in these experiments. Unpublished studies carried out at the
University of Adelaide 1988-1992 established the efficacy of emu oil
as an anti-inflammatory agent in delaying/preventing arthritis
development without compromising the stomach (in contrast to most
NSAIDs). Some of these finding were published in a US patent (1) to
justify claims made therein. Further studies, as yet unpublished,
identified very potent fractions (active at less than 5 mg/kg).
These are now being analysed to identify chemical "markers" of
activity that might be used to certify and standardise different
batches of oil, for likely anti-inflammatory potency.
While this particular animal model of experimental
arthritis has delivered useful date, it certainly needs to be
supplemented with other whole animal pharmacological assays to
characterise other possible medicinal benefits of the oil. The
wound-healing models using rats, currently being studied in Perth
and Brisbane, should allow insight into any effect the oil may have
on hastening repair of traumatised tissue and healing after
bruising.
Earlier studies in Adelaide indicated the oil was
not very active in reducing fever or suppressing rapidly-developing,
but transient, models of acute inflammation (e.g. oedema induced in
rat paws by inoculating irritants such as histamine or carrageenan).
These rather negative findings at least indicated that emu oil
lacked aspirin-like activity. [This was in fact a helpful finding,
since we already have an abundance of aspirin-like drugs in the
market place.] Rather, it positioned emu oil as a potential
medication with activity 'beyond aspirin' i.e. that might control
chronic inflammation (rather than acute transitory oedema etc.) and
therefore of possible value for treating sustained inflammatory
disorders like rheumatoid arthritis, as well as post-surgical
trauma.
KEY FINDINGS
'Activity' refers to
anti-inflammatory/arthritis-suppressant action as seen in this rap
polyarthritis model after dermal application i.e. by rubbing on and
into the skin.
1. The oil is not particularly effective, applied
dermally, without an additive to enhance skin permeation. It is this
combination of oil and enhancer, which is the essential core
technology of these patents. Enhancers include esters of salicylic
acids, which are not very efficient in preventing signs of rat
arthritis by themselves, but certainly provide analgesic and
antipyretic benefit.
2. The normal fatty acid components of the oil (and
most other animal fats) are almost certainly not the active
principles. Plant oils with a similar content of oleic acid (canola,
olive) were not active. These and other observations rule out the
'placebo effect' as an explanation for the observed 'activity' of
dermally applied emu oil.
3. The activity in the crude oils may be destroyed
by light, due to the presence of a photosensitising yellow pigment.
4. The 'activity' may also be impaired/destroyed by
some of the rather harsh processes being used to prepare a highly
acceptable cosmetic product.
5. The 'activity' can be concentrated more than
100-fold from certain batches of oil to give a stable fraction with
remarkable potency, inasmuch as it can be given along with the
arthritigen and effectively switch off disease development; in this
respect resembling some of the powerful immunosuppressant drugs that
are now being studied as alternative treatments for rheumatoid
arthritis, e.g. cyclosporin-A.
6. Activity has been ascertained in oils from emus
raised Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland but not similar
oil fractions prepared from free-range chickens and other domestic
animals (pigs, goats).
7. The inactive fraction (>90% volume) of these
particular emu oils was a useful vehicle for transdermal delivery of
other lipid-soluble drugs e.g. cyclosporin.
8. Further work, beyond that described in the patent
(1), has shown the 'activity' can be separated from the yellow (photosensitising)
components to provide a more durable, seemingly light-resistant,
commodity.
9. No sample of emu oil tested to date has shown any
of the gastro-irritant effect associated with conventional NSAIDs
(even when these latter drugs are given transdermally).
10. Finally it must be emphasised that not all
samples of emu oil tested against this rat arthritis have shown
activity: clearly there are oils and oils, i.e. + or 0. Furthermore,
even A grade oil may be inactive if given orally i.e. by mouth,
instead of transdermally by rubbing on.
FURTHER COMMENTS
The impetus to carry out these studies arose
originally in Western Australia, largely due to the enthusiasm and
support of P Clark, J Leach, D Williams and their Aboriginal
partners in the Emu industry. Unfortunately the early momentum could
not be sustained. So we now find ourselves in the position of trying
to catch up with some quite high-powered development work being
undertaken in Canada, the USA, China and France to further establish
the potential medical benefits of emu oils. Fortunately there are
concerned scientists in the Department of Agriculture WA (J Snowdon,
P Frapple) and Qld Department of Primary Industry (C Davis, P Kent)
who are looking for ways to help retrieve this situation.
Concerning the future, it is imperative that we all
try and find some answers to at least two difficult questions:
1. How do the conditions of bird husbandry,
particularly those relating to feed and environment, affect the
yield and stability of effective oil. Present practices for
optimising meat yields and leather quality may not necessarily be
the most appropriate for enhancing production and storage of the
therapeutic factor (s) in emu fat.
2. How seriously is the industry prepared to promote
further essential research and development? This is absolutely
necessary to establish future certification by the Therapeutic Goods
Administration (TGA) in Canberra and related regulatory bodies
overseas e.g. the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United
States, to allow claims regarding therapeutic benefit (s) of emu oil
products when sold openly through pharmacies, supermarkets, etc. It
is no use just waiting for a government agency to step in with the
requisite funding: it will be slow coming and unlikely to be
sufficient. The industry needs to take the initiative here to ensure
it is not a case of 'too little too late'.
Unless we can wrestle with these problems now, we
may as well give away the idea of realising a high financial return
on a low volume product - namely stabilised and standardised emu oil
concentrates with proven clinical efficacy for treating musculo-skeletal
pain and inflammation
|