OPC Plus and the risk of chronic venous insufficiency
Read the following text and test your understanding on the questions below.
OPC improves venous microcirculation and increases capillary resistance and therefore may reduce the risk of chronic venous insufficiency.
The product is a grape seed extract described as containing 40 mg oligomeric procyanidins (OPC), 40 mg berry-blend per capsule and inulin (338 mg). The manufacturing process has been described. No information was provided on the berry blend.
Improvement of venous microcirculation and increases capillary resistance and therefore reduction of risk of chronic venous insufficiency.
20 references were provided as being pertinent to the claimed effect. No details concerning the search strategy were provided. No human intervention studies using the OPC were provided.
Do you see the benefit in putting this claim on a product?
Do you think consumers would understand the wording of the claim?
What do you understand by ‘characterisation’ in this case? (i.e. What is it in the component of the product that has been identified as having the health effect and has this been sufficiently characterised?)
Do you agree that the effect in question is likely to be beneficial for the general population?
What do you think about the level of evidence provided for the scientific substantiation?
You could consider:
- Were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans included
- Were the studies performed with the product/compound of interest?
- Were the measures of the health effect valid?
- Was there a dose-response relationship?
- Was there evidence provided for a mechanism by which the product/component has the effect?
Do you think the claim was given a positive opinion?