Cited by 3Complementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesNutrition and Health Studies

Pharmacological Interactions Between Nutritional Supplements and Prescription Medications in Older Adults: A Comprehensive Review

Open access

Abstract

The global aging population faces increasing risks of supplement-drug interactions due to rising polypharmacy and widespread use of nutritional supplements. Older adults, particularly those with chronic conditions, frequently combine prescription medications with dietary supplements, yet healthcare providers often overlook these interactions, leading to preventable adverse effects. This review synthesizes evidence from 16 international studies spanning nearly three decades, examining the intersection of supplement and medication use in older adults. Key findings reveal a high prevalence of concurrent use (23-82.5%), significantly increasing the likelihood of adverse interactions, particularly with antithrombotics (e.g., warfarin and ginkgo) and absorption-disrupting minerals (e.g., calcium and levothyroxine). A critical systemic failure in patient-provider communication exacerbates these risks, as clinicians often neglect to inquire about supplement use. Despite widespread potential interactions, actual clinical harm appears concentrated in high-risk combinations. The review calls for proactive clinical strategies, including standardized supplement screening, targeted patient education, and pharmacist-led medication management. Its limitations include cross-sectional study designs and self-reported data, underscoring the need for longitudinal and intervention-based research. Future studies should prioritize causal evidence, standardized methodologies, and data from low- and middle-income countries to mitigate risks in aging populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7759/cureus.92363

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Concurrent, often undisclosed use of berberine with prescription drugs is common in older adults.

    “Concurrent, often undisclosed use with prescription drugs is common in older adults, yet berberine is far from inert.”

    From Berberine-Drug Interactions: Mechanisms, Clinical Relevance and Risk Stratification-A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Review (page not available) reports that older adults commonly use supplements alongside prescription drugs and frequently fail to report supplement use to doctors. It does not identify berberine or establish that concurrent, undisclosed use of berberine specifically is common. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Between 5% and over 80% of older adults combine supplements with prescription drugs, and a substantial proportion carry at least one potential interaction.

    “Population studies report that between 5% and over 80% of older adults combine supplements with prescription drugs, and a substantial proportion carry at least one potential interaction [3,4,5,6,7].”

    From Berberine-Drug Interactions: Mechanisms, Clinical Relevance and Risk Stratification-A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Abstract reports concurrent supplement–medication use of 23–82.5%, and the Review reports that 12–16% of older adults face potential interactions. These passages support the general point, but not the claimed 5% lower bound. The Review also describes the 23–82.5% range as supplement-use rates in specific cohorts, so it does not consistently establish that range for concurrent use. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Changaramkumarath, G., Abucha, J. M., Wollel, M. M., Somannagari, N., Kasagga, A., Sapkota, A., & Malasevskaia, I. A.
Affiliations
  • Chongqing Medical University (CN)
  • University of Gondar (ET)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Changaramkumarath, Gichin
Venue
Cureus
Published
2025-09-15
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
e92363-e92363
ISSN
2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414205407
Cited by
2
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutrition and Health Studies
Keywords
drug-supplement interactions, dietary supplements, older adults, polypharmacy, antithrombotic agents, warfarin, Ginkgo biloba, calcium, levothyroxine, drug absorption, patient-provider communication, pharmacist-led medication management, patient education, adverse drug reactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review