Arthritis
In 2009, Sindhu et al. orally administered C. dactylon to rats after intradermally inducing arthritis. The induction produced inflammation, and a marked rise in the levels of inflammatory mediators, C-reactive protein, myeloperoxidase, and nitrite. Resultant oxidative stress was noted with substantial declines in the activity of catalase, superoxide dismutase, and glutathione peroxidase, as well as levels of glutathione, vitamins C and E, and an increase in lipid peroxidation. Administration of C. dactylon yielded substantial changes, with mitigation of the inflammatory response and oxidative stress as well as diminution of the arthritic response nearly to the baseline condition. The investigators concluded that the botanical agent clearly demonstrates potential to protect against arthritis.2
Dr. Leslie S. Baumann
A subsequent study in rats by Bhangale and Acharya supported the use of C. dactylon for RA, as its oral administration was found safe at all dose levels (100, 200 and 400 mg/kg), with 400 mg/kg as the most effective at ameliorating hemoglobin and red blood cell levels and C-reactive protein, as well as lowering tumor necrosis factor–alpha. The authors also noted that the ethanolic extract of C. dactylon contained alkaloids, flavonoids, and glycosides, all of which are known to confer health benefits.1
Allergy
In 2016, López-Matas et al. studied the profiles of sensitization to C. dactylon (as well as Phragmites communis) in subjects sensitized to grasses and evaluated cross-reactivity between these grasses as well as temperate ones. Patients received skin prick tests with a grass mixture, and 24 patients (80%) were found to have had positive results for C. dactylon (and 90% to P. communis). The researchers concluded that sensitization to these species appears to be engendered by allergens other than those present in sweet grasses.6
Mehta et al. reported in 2018 on their investigation of common allergens in Ambala, India, using intradermal tests in patients with asthma, allergic rhinitis, and eczema. The study included 100 patients over an 8-year period, with 197 allergens (50 types of pollen, 19 fungi, 17 insects, 14 types of dust, 6 kinds of animal dander, 7 varieties of fabric and feathers, 82 foods, dust mites, and parthenium) tested. Pollens (51%) were the major allergens, followed by foods (28.9%), insects (26.9%), fungi (12.6%), and dusts (6.7%). C. dactylon (5%) was among two other species ranking fourth among pollen allergens.7
Also that year, Sánchez et al. investigated whether growing conditions (rural vs. urban) might influence the nasal inflammatory response to C. dactylon among patients with allergic rhinitis. They observed that the urban extract provoked larger wheals, and more patients with rhinitis experienced a positive nasal challenge test than those administered the rural extract. The skin and nasal tests did not elicit reactions in healthy controls. The researchers reached the conclusion that growth of C. dactylon in an urban setting can produce alterations in the protein extract, with potential clinical ramifications for patients who experience allergic rhinitis.8
Conclusion
Regular readers of this column know of my interest in botanically sourced topical products. Such ingredients with an extensive history of traditional medical use are particularly compelling. Many of these compounds are found in the modern medical and dermatologic armamentaria. C. dactylon does boast a track record of use in Ayurvedic medicine. However, there is a paucity of modern research at the present time. While there are concerns about its allergenicity, some encouraging results have been seen in relation to RA and wound healing. Much more research is needed, though, before this botanical agent can be included feasibly for standard skin care.