Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Pharmacology logoLink to Frontiers in Pharmacology
. 2025 Dec 19;16:1695614. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1695614

Effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic intervention in essential hypertension: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Saylee Deshmukh 1,*, Kuldeep Choudhary 1, Azeem Ahmad 2, Govind Reddy 1, B C S Rao 2, Narayanam Srikanth 2, Rabinarayan Acharya 2
PMCID: PMC12757693  PMID: 41487502

Abstract

Background

Essential hypertension (EH) is a major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality that has become a public health challenge owing to poor control and adherence. Many clinical trials have exhibited the effectiveness of Ayurvedic formulations and procedures in the management of EH. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic interventions compared to conventional therapies for EH.

Method

The systematic review and meta-analysis presented herein adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. Accordingly, we conducted a literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Directory of Open Access Journals, Google Scholar, AYUSH Research Portal, and Ayurveda Research Database for published works up to May 2025. The studies included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, observational, and pre–post studies of Ayurvedic interventions for EH. The primary outcomes evaluated were systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) changes. The risk of bias of ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the meta-analysis was assessed using the Cochrane guidelines. The meta-analysis was performed in two groups, namely, Ayurveda vs. placebo and Ayurveda vs. standard antihypertensives, using RevMan 5.4.

Result

A total of 44 studies was included in the systematic review, and ten RCTs involving 524 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The interventions included single herbs, polyherbal/herbomineral formulations, and panchakarma therapies. Compared to placebo (n = 118), Ayurveda showed a non-significant reduction in systolic BP (mean difference (MD) = −2.63 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI): −6.04 to 0.79; p = 0.13) and diastolic BP (MD = −2.67 mmHg; 95% CI: −7.44 to 2.09; p = 0.27). Compared to standard antihypertensives (n = 396), the reductions in systolic BP (MD = −0.22 mmHg; 95% CI: −0.82 to 0.38; p = 0.47) and diastolic BP (MD = −0.66 mmHg; 95% CI: −1.67 to 0.35; p = 0.20) values were non-significant. High heterogeneity (I2 > 90%) was observed during analysis.

Conclusion

This systematic review shows that although Ayurvedic interventions do not achieve significant BP reductions versus conventional treatments, they may provide clinical benefits with good safety. The main limitations of the present review are the heterogeneity and methodological differences among the different studies. Hence, high-quality multicenter RCTs with standardized interventions are needed to assess the overall effectiveness of these therapies.

Systemetic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42019123886, Identifier PROSPERO.

Keywords: essential hypertension, ayurveda, systematic review, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, herbal medicine, panchakarma

1. Introduction

Hypertension is a significant public health concern owing to its associations with coronary heart disease, stroke, and chronic heart disease (Arima et al., 2011). Accordingly, it has emerged as the leading cause of mortality globally and ranks as the third leading cause of adult disabilities (Bostrom et al., 2016). Hypertension remains inadequately managed owing to insufficient awareness, inadequate primary care, and poor adherence (World Health Organization, 2025). Essential/primary/idiopathic hypertension is a multifactorial disorder characterized by sustained chronic elevation of the arterial blood pressure (BP), which comprises almost 95% of all hypertensive cases (Messerli et al., 2007).

The overall prevalence of essential hypertension (EH) in India is 29.8% (Anchala et al., 2014); estimates indicate that approximately 17.6% of these individuals reside in India, suggesting a likely significant increase in the burden of cardiovascular diseases in the near future (Ramakrishnan et al., 2019).

The main factors contributing to elevated BP include obesity, high salt intake, stress, low potassium intake, low calcium intake, excessive alcohol consumption, aging, and insulin resistance (Carretero and Oparil, 2000). Hypertension is often referred to as the “silent killer” in modern society and has significant health implications.

The primary therapeutic approach for managing EH involves regular administration of oral antihypertensive medications. Nevertheless, patient adherence is often suboptimal owing to the high costs and varying degrees of adverse effects associated with long-term medication use, such as hypokalemia, bronchospasm, and angioedema (Hypertension Writing Group of Chinese, 2016). Consequently, there is a need for effective and safe therapeutic alternatives.

Ayurveda is a traditional medical system that has been widely practiced in the Indian subcontinent; it is primarily aimed at holistic management of health and diseases and has historically emphasized health preservation in ancient India. It encompasses a holistic medical framework aimed at regulating the body’s homeostatic mechanisms through various procedures, techniques, medicines, regimens, and dietary measures to achieve specific effects (Sridharan et al., 2011).

There are no direct references to EH in existing Ayurvedic texts. However, based on symptomatology, EH can be correlated with various abnormal behavioral traits described in these texts under the features of vatarakta (SAT: ED-8), raktagata vata (SAT: AAE-8), and raktavritta vata (SAT: AAD-3.1) (Kamble et al., 2018). Based on an understanding of Ayurvedic pathophysiology, it may be said that EH occurs due to vitiation of vata (i.e., body factor responsible for movement and cognition; SAT: B.384) and rakta (i.e., blood tissues; SAT-B.429), which cause vasoconstriction through impaired hormonal actions and lead to increased peripheral resistance (Menon and Shukla, 2018).

In recent years, various clinical trials published on Ayurveda have shown its effectiveness in reducing BP; there are also some systematic reviews on the effectiveness of certain procedures like shirodhara (Khapre et al., 2025). However, to date, there have been no comprehensive systematic reviews on assessing the quality of these published studies, the strengths of their clinical effects, and summarizing the overall evidence for the effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic interventions in EH. Given these as the main goals, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing studies.

2. Methods

This study was registered on PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42019123886, and the protocols used in this review are in accordance with a previous publication (Deshmukh et al., 2019).

This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) to ensure sufficient quality of evidence (PRISMA, 2020).

2.1. Eligibility criteria

2.1.1. Study

We included randomized and non-randomized control trials (RCTs and NRCTs), pre–post single-group designs, and observational studies with Ayurveda as an intervention for essential hypertensive patients aged 18 years and above with no other comorbidities. The language of the published studies was restricted to English.

2.1.2. Participants

Adults with EH were included in this study. According to the JNC VII guidelines on the definition of hypertension, individuals are categorized as hypertensive when their systolic blood pressure (SBP) is equal to or greater than 140 mmHg or their diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is equal to or greater than 90 mmHg (Chobanian et al., 2003).

2.1.3. Intervention

The term “Ayurvedic intervention” as used herein includes treatments or practices based on the fundamental principles of Ayurveda through the usage of internal or external medications, Panchakarma (purificatory procedures), administration of single or polyherbal or herbomineral formulations as mentioned in the Ayurvedic texts or Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia of India (API) and administered in the classical forms (such as powder, decoction, and tablet) or as their extracts (Choudhary et al., 2023).

2.1.4. Control/comparator

The control/comparator group comprised placebo or standard antihypertensive treatments or Ayurveda treatments different from those used in the intervention arm.

2.1.5. Outcome measures

The primary outcome measures were improvements in the SBP and DBP from baseline to last follow-up.

2.1.6. Exclusion criteria

Ayurvedic review articles on hypertension, studies on secondary hypertension with other comorbidities, studies containing Ayurvedic interventions as add-ons to standard antihypertensives or other AYUSH interventions like Yoga, Homeopathy, Siddha, and Unani, as well as other systems of medicines practiced globally (e.g., Chinese medicine) but not based on the fundamental principles of Ayurveda were excluded from this survey; moreover, we excluded animal studies and duplicate publications reporting the same groups of participants.

2.2. Search strategy

We included databases like PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Google Scholar, AYUSH research portal, and Ayurveda Research Database (ARD) in the search from their inception up to May 2025 for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The search strategy was centered around search terms describing Ayurvedic interventions and EH, namely, ((primary hypertension) OR (essential hypertension)) AND ((ayurveda) OR (herbal medicine) OR (plant)). The strategy was modified for each database as necessary, and the list of search terms used is provided in Supplementary Appendix 1.

2.3. Study selection and data extraction

After eliminating duplicate records, titles, and abstracts from the database search results, we screened the remaining search items through a comprehensive examination of potentially relevant abstracts in accordance with the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. The screening and full-text reviews were conducted independently and in duplicate by two researchers (SD and KC), and the decisions were finalized through consensus among all authors.

2.4. Risk of bias

The risk of bias was assessed according to the evaluation criteria specified by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins and Green, 2009); accordingly, we examined the random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, blinding (participants, personnel, and outcome assessor), selective reporting, and other biases. Two of the authors (SD and KC) independently assessed the included studies and judged each of the domains as having low, high, or unclear risk of bias. The findings were then summarized via the “risk of bias summary” and “risk of bias graph.”

2.5. Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. For continuous variables, the standardized mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were employed for the statistical analyses. The heterogeneity of each outcome was assessed using the Chi-squared test and I2 statistics. In instances where no significant heterogeneity could be identified (p > 0.1 and I2 < 50%), a fixed-effects model was utilized for the meta-analysis. Conversely, when heterogeneity was detected (p < 0.1 and I2 ≥ 50%), a random-effects model was applied along with cautious interpretations.

3. Results

3.1. Literature search

A total of 22,321 studies were identified at the end of the preliminary search, of which we excluded 38 duplicate records, 21892 ineligible studies, and 22 other studies; the remaining 369 studies were screened for their titles and abstracts in the next step. Here, 129 studies with full texts were screened, and 44 studies were finally included in the systematic review based on the inclusion criteria after reading the full texts. Moreover, ten studies were included in the meta-analysis after excluding 34 studies owing to incomplete data. The literature screening process and results are illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

Flowchart detailing the study selection process for meta-analysis. Identification yields 22,321 records; 21,952 removed for reasons like duplication. Screening results in 369 records, with 240 excluded. Retrieval attempts for 129 reports result in 54 assessed for eligibility. 44 studies included in the systematic review; 10 in meta-analysis. Exclusions include incomplete data and other reasons.

Open in a new tab

Flowchart showing the selection of studies for the review and meta-analysis.

3.2. Study characteristics and interventions

The 44 studies included in the systematic review are detailed in Tables 1–4. Of these, 15 were RCTs, 9 were single-arm studies, 17 were parallel-arm studies, and 3 were observational studies. All studies had consistent baselines and included both male and female subjects. The pre- and post-comparison data on the effects of Ayurvedic interventions on the SBP and DBP for both the intervention and control groups were used to determine inclusion. Ten of the fifteen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis and involved 118 participants in the Ayurveda vs. placebo category as well as 396 participants in the Ayurveda vs. active control category. The Ayurvedic interventions consisted of single drugs, polyherbal/herbomineral formulations, and/or panchakarma. The durations of intervention in the studies included in the systematic reviews varied from 10 days to 1 year. The details of each type of study are further explored below.

TABLE 1.

Basic characteristics of the included single-arm studies.

Serial number Authors (year) Samples (total/completed) Age (years) Intervention Dose/procedure time Frequency Duration Outcome measures a Adverse event Outcome compared with baseline
↓SBP (MD) p-value ↓DBP (MD) p-value
1 Padhi et al. (2009) 127/113 35–70 Brahmi yoga 9 g/d 3 divided doses 90 days 1, 2, 3 Not mentioned 27.93 <0.001 15.21 <0.001
2 Gupta and Singh (1995) 35/35 >18 Lekhana basti (Shastri, 2017) 100 mL/d 8 days, once every 3 months 1 year 1, 3, 7, 8, 10 Not mentioned 11.14 <0.01 10.57 <0.001
3 Bharti and Bikshapati (2006) 25/22 35–70 Arjuna vachadi yoga 1 g/d 2 divided doses 3 months 1, 2 No adverse event 17.55 <0.001 14.64 <0.001
4 Sane et al. (2018) 30/30 30–70 Capsule artyl 1 g/d 2 divided doses 28 days 1 No adverse event 13.62 <0.001 0.68 >0.05
5 Kumawat et al. (2022) 150/100 18–50 Powder of rudraksha (Elaeocarpus ganitrus Roxb.; Elaeocarpaceae; Elaeocarpi ganitri semen) 2 g/d 2 divided doses 12 weeks 1, 2, 7 No adverse event 18.47 <0.001 8.26 <0.001
6 Hivale and Bhatted (2018) 15/15 20–60 Virechana - - 30 days 1, 2 No adverse event 28.67 <0.001 19.3 <0.001
7 Patel and Patel (2024) 30/28 20–50 Virechana + Arjuna, Gokshura (AG) powder 20 g/d 2 divided doses 15 days 1, 2 Not mentioned 19.29 <0.001 12.86 <0.001
8 Kar (2014) 12/12 >18 Abhyanga 30 min/d Once a day 10 days 1, 2 No adverse event 17.33 <0.001 5.67 >0.05
9 Yadav et al. (2019) 25/25 30–60 Extract of Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk [Asteraceae; Ecliptae alba herba] 1 g/d 2 divided doses 30 days 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 No adverse event 16.1 <0.001 14.08 <0.001
Open in a new tab
a

1-systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP, DBP), 2-clinical symptoms, 3-lipid profile, 4-liver function test, 5-kidney function test, 6-urine analysis, 7-pulse rate, 8-bodyweight, 9-quality of life, 10-neurohormone level, 11-serum electrolyte level, 12-angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) activity, 13-mean arterial pressure, 14-fibrinolytic activity, 15-Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) and/or Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). MD, mean difference.

TABLE 4.

Basic characteristics of the included observational studies.

Serial number Authors (year) Samples (total/completed) Age (years) Intervention Dose/procedure time Frequency Duration Outcome measures a Adverse event Outcome compared with pre-intervention
Intervention
↓SBP (MD) p-value ↓DBP (MD) p-value
1 Nandha et al. (2011) 110/98 >18 Capsule rakatchaphar 1 g/d 2 divided doses 8 weeks 1 No adverse event 41.18 <0.001 20.9 <0.001
2 Ali et al. (2015) 40/40 30–70 Brahmyadi churna + tablet shilajatu (purified asphaltum) 18 g/d 3 divided doses 30 days 1 No adverse event 22.7 <0.001 14.6 <0.001
3 Pradeep et al. (2014) 30/30 30–70 Shirodhara + tablet arjin 40 min + 1 tablet Thrice daily 30 days 1 Not mentioned 23.5 <0.001 17.6 <0.001
Open in a new tab
a

1-systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP, DBP), 2-clinical symptoms, 3-lipid profile, 4-liver function test, 5-kidney function test, 6-urine analysis, 7-pulse rate, 8-bodyweight, 9-quality of life, 10-neurohormone level, 11-serum electrolyte level, 12-angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) activity, 13-mean arterial pressure, 14-fibrinolytic activity, 15-Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) and/or Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). MD, mean difference.

3.2.1. Single-arm studies

Table 1 shows the details of nine single-arm studies that evaluated the impacts of various Ayurvedic interventions on BP. These interventions included classical therapies like Virechana (purgation therapy), Abhyanga (oil massage), and herbal formulations like Eudraksha churna, Arjuna vachadi yoga, and Eclipta alba (Bhringaraj) extract. Most of these studies demonstrated significant reductions in both SBP and DBP, with p-values < 0.001 in nearly all cases. Although these studies indicate strong therapeutic potential, their lack of control groups limits the inference on causality.

3.2.2. Controlled trials

Table 2 shows the details of the 15 RCTs included in the systematic review that compared Ayurvedic interventions to standard care, placebo, or no treatment. Many of these trials utilized Hibiscus sabdariffa (ambasthaki) tea or extracts and found substantial BP-lowering effects. Similarly, Ghaffari et al. (2020) demonstrated that Emblica officinalis (Amalaki) combined with conventional drugs significantly outperformed placebo. Garlic-based preparations were evaluated extensively across multiple arms in trials reported by Ashraf et al. (2013) and Sobenin et al. (2009) that confirmed dose-dependent antihypertensive effects. The other notable herbs included Boerhavia diffusa (Punarnava) extract, Balsamodendron mukul (Guggulu), and the herbal formulation Karsha vati, all of which showed statistically significant improvements in BP outcomes. These trials provide valuable comparative insights, although blinding and allocation concealment were inconsistently reported.

TABLE 2.

Basic characteristics of the included controlled trials.

Serial number Authors (year) Study type Samples (total/completed) Age (years) Intervention Dose Frequency Control Duration Outcome measures a Adverse event Outcome compared with baseline
Intervention Control
↓SBP (MD) p-value ↓DBP (MD) p-value ↓SBP (MD) p-value ↓DBP (MD) p-value
1 Haji and Haji (1999) RCT 80/54< >18 Tea of Hibiscus sabdariffa Linn. [Malvaceae; Hibisci sabdariffae flos] 12 g/d Once daily No treatment 12 days 1 Not mentioned 17.61 <0.001 10.87 <0.001 6.26 <0.008 3.52 <0.02
2 Herrera-Arellano et al. (2004) RCT 80/70< 30–80 Infusion of Hibiscus sabdariffa Linn. [Malvaceae; Hibisci sabdariffae flos] 20 g/d 2 divided doses Captopril 4 weeks 1, 6 Not mentioned 14.15 <0.03 11.18 <0.06 16.43 <0.001 13.12 <0.001
3 Herrera-Arellano et al. (2007) Double-blind RCT 193/171 25–61 Extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa Linn. [Malvaceae; Hibisci sabdariffae flos] 250 mg/d Once daily Lisinopril 4 weeks 1, 11, 12 HS: nervousness
Control: dry cough, dry mouth		 17.14 <0.001 11.97 <0.001 23.31 <0.001 15.39 <0.001
4 Jalalyazdi et al. (2019) RCT 46/46 18–70 Tea of Hibiscus sabdariffa Linn. [Malvaceae; Hibisci sabdariffae flos] + non-medical treatment advice 2.5 g/d 2 divided doses Non-medical treatment advice 30 days 1 Not mentioned 7.43 <0.001 6.7 <0.001 1.91 <0.004 3.96 <0.001
5 Ghaffari et al. (2020) Triple-blind, placebo-controlled RT 92/81 18–80 Powder of Emblica officinalis Gaertn. [Phyllanthaceae; Emblicae officinalis fructus] + ongoing allopathic antihypertensive 1,500 mg/d 3 divided doses Placebo + ongoing allopathic antihypertensive 8 weeks 1 No adverse event 26 <0.001 9.3 <0.001 11.8 <0.001 3.8 0.0014
6 Ashraf et al. (2013) Single-blind, placebo-controlled study 210/192 20–70 Garlic extract 300 mg/d Divided doses Atenolol 50/100 mg 24 weeks 1 Two in placebo: abdominal discomfort, headache
Three in garlic 1,500 mg/d: heartburn		 2.3 <0.05 1.45 <0.05 9.2 <0.001 9.11 <0.001
Garlic extract 600 mg/d Divided doses Placebo 4.3 <0.001 3.37 <0.001 0.2 <0.05 −1.04 <0.05
Garlic extract 900 mg/d Divided doses 6.1 <0.001 4.16 <0.001
Garlic extract 1,200 mg/d Divided doses 6.7 <0.001 6.27 <0.001
Garlic extract 1,500 mg/d Divided doses 7.6 <0.001 4.97 <0.001
7 Sobenin et al. (2009) Double-blind, placebo-controlled RT 90/84 35–70 Time-released garlic powder tablet (Allicor-1) 600 mg/d 2 divided doses Placebo (identical) 8 weeks 1 Gastrointestinal complaints
One in Allicor-2; one in the Kwai group		 7 <0.001 3.8 <0.001 3.2 <0.001 1 <0.001
Time-released garlic powder tablet (Allicor-2) 2,400 mg/d 4 Divided doses 9.3 <0.001 3.2 <0.001
Garlic powder (Kwai) 900 mg/d 3 Divided doses 5.4 <0.001 −1 0.08
8 Dhawan and Jain (2004) Double-blind, placebo-controlled RT 40/40 >18 Garlic pearls Garlic oil 2.5% w/v 2 pearls/d Placebo 8 weeks 1, 3 Gastrointestinal discomfort: 3 in garlic pearls and 2 in placebo 8 <0.05 9 <0.05 3 >0.05 2 >0.05
9 Panneerselvam et al. (2005) Single-/double-blind RCT 57/57 35–70 Ghana vati with Balsamodendron mukul Hook. [Burseraceae; Commiphorae mukul guggulu] B. mukul 1,500 mg/d 2 divided doses Nifedipine 10 mg/day 6 weeks 1, 3 Not mentioned 20.23 <0.01 8.91 <0.05 20.88 <0.001 2.41 >0.05
B. mukul 1,500 mg/d + nifedipine 10 mg/d Control 26.83 <0.001 15.27 <0.01 1.95 >0.05 2.49 >0.05
10 Verma et al. (2012) Single-blind, placebo-controlled RT 30/30 35–50 Powder of Pueraria tuberosa (Willd.) DC [Fabaceae (Leguminosae); Puerariae tuberosae tuber] 3 g 2 divided doses Placebo 12 weeks 1, 14 Not mentioned 25 <0.001 11 <0.05 −3.9 >0.05 0.53 >0.05
11 Nwachukwu et al. (2015) Double-blind RCT 78/75 31–70 Extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa Linn. [Malvaceae; Hibisci sabdariffae flos] 150 mg/kg/d NA Lisinopril 10 mg/d 4 weeks 1, 11, 12, 13 Lisinopril: cough in 3 cases
Placebo: hypertension in 2 cases		 17.08 <0.001 12.12 <0.001 12.6 <0.001 9.2 <0.001
Placebo 1.1 >0.05 0.4 >0.05
12 Patil and Patel (2020) RCT 60/60 30–70 Karsha vati 4 g/d 2 divided doses Telmisartan 20 mg/d 6 weeks 1, 2 Not mentioned 6.13 <0.001 4.53 <0.001 12.2 <0.001 8.67 <0.001
13 Chaudhary and Rohila (2015) RCT 45/40 60–90 Mixture of Tagara + Gokshura + Triphala powder Tagara (2 g/d); Gokshura (12 g/d); Triphala (6 g/d) Tagara and Gokshura: 2 divided doses Triphala: once daily Amlodipine 5 mg/d 30 days 1, 3, 4, 5 No adverse event 16.4 <0.001 3 <0.001 24.5 <0.001 8.7 <0.001
14 Sharma et al. (2021) Single-blind study 34/33 >18 Shamak yoga 4 g/d 2 divided doses Atenolol 50 mg/d 4 weeks 1, 2 No adverse event 15.8 <0.001 10.7 <0.001 13.5 <0.001 12.3 <0.001
15 Nayak et al. (2015) RCT 60/52 35–60 Extract of punarnava: Boerhavia diffusa Linn. [Nyctaginaceae; Boerhavia diffusa radix] 1 g/d 2 divided doses Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg 30 days 1, 11 Control: 23 cases
Treatment: 3 cases		 14.15 <0.001 8.3 <0.001 20.64 <0.001 9.68 <0.001
Open in a new tab
a

1-systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP, DBP), 2-clinical symptoms, 3-lipid profile, 4-liver function test, 5-kidney function test, 6-urine analysis, 7-pulse rate, 8-bodyweight, 9-quality of life, 10-neurohormone level, 11-serum electrolyte level, 12-angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) activity, 13-mean arterial pressure, 14-fibrinolytic activity, 15-Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) and/or Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). RCT, randomized controlled trial; RT, randomized trial; MD, mean difference.

3.2.3. Comparative studies

Table 3 shows the details of 17 comparative studies that analyzed Aurvedic formulations against other Ayurvedic treatments. For example, Bharathi and Swamy (2005) found that Arjuna vachadi yoga (a polyherbal formulation) and another polyherbal formulation with Chandra prabhavati, Punarnava mandora, and Sweta parpati (CPS) significantly reduced BP, with slightly better outcomes in the Arjuna vachadi yoga group. Panchakarma therapies like Virechana, Shirodhara (oil dripping on forehead), and Takradhara (buttermilk dripping on forehead) were also found to feature prominently in combination with herbal therapies. Combination interventions like virechana and Arjunadi ghana vati demonstrated significant reductions in SBP and DBP compared to control modalities like Basti or Sarpagandha vati. Avhad et al. (2016) showed that combining Baktadushtihar yoga with conventional antihypertensives improved outcomes over standalone therapy. These comparative studies emphasize the synergy between procedural and pharmacological Ayurvedic approaches but are constrained by the heterogeneity in comparators and short study durations.

TABLE 3.

Basic characteristics of the included comparative studies.

Serial number Authors (year) Samples (total/completed) Age (years) Intervention Dose/procedure time Frequency Comparator Dose Frequency Duration Outcome measures a Adverse event Outcome compared with baseline
Intervention Comparator
↓SBP (MD) p-value ↓DBP (MD) p-value ↓SBP (MD) p-value ↓DBP (MD) p-value
1 Bharathi and Swamy (2005) 75/66 35–70 Arjuna vachadi yoga 9 g/d 3 divided doses CPS (chandraprabha vati, punarnava mandora, sweta parpati) 4.5 g/d 3 divided doses 6 weeks 1, 2 Not mentioned 22.91 <0.001 18.4 <0.001 19.38 <0.001 14.12 <0.001
2 Kundu et al. (2010) 47/40 >18 Shirodhara by bala taila 30 min 3 sessions for 7 days Tablet of sarpagandha [Rauwolfia serpentina (L.) Benth.; Apocynaceae; Rauwolfia serpentina radix] 1 g/d 2 divided doses 30 days 1, 2 Not mentioned 8.3 <0.001 4.9 <0.001 5.3 <0.001 3 <0.001
3 Mishra and Tubaki (2019) 68/68 20–70 Vati capsule of brahmi [Bacopa monnieri (L.) Pennell; Plantaginaceae; Bacopa monnieri herba] 1 g/d 2 divided doses Ghana vati of sarpagandha [Rauwolfia serpentina (L.) Benth.; Apocynaceae; Rauwolfia serpentina radix] 1 g/d 2 divided doses 30 days 1, 2, 3, 13 No adverse event 10.88 <0.001 2.85 0.01 12.83 <0.001 3.64 0.006
4 Shukla et al. (2013) 40/33 20–60 Virechana + Arjunadi ghana vati (AGV) AGV 2 g/d AGV 2 divided doses Basti + AGV 16 basti + AGV 2 g/d AGV 2 divided doses 30 days 1, 2 Not mentioned 21.75 <0.001 8.87 <0.02 20 <0.001 9.18 <0.001
5 Mishra et al. (2012) 20/20 >18 Shankhapushpayadi ghana vati 2 g/d 2 divided doses Ghana vati of sarpagandha [Rauwolfia serpentina (L.) Benth.; Apocynaceae; Rauwolfia serpentina radix] 2 g/d 2 divided doses 8 weeks 1, 2 Not mentioned 14.4 <0.001 8.6 <0.001 19.6 <0.001 11.2 <0.01
6 Kylliang et al. (2019) 40/40 30–70 Ashwagandhadi churna 6 g/d 2 divided doses Powder of sarpagandha [Rauwolfia serpentina (L.) Benth.; Apocynaceae; Rauwolfia serpentina radix] 2 g/d 2 divided doses 21 days 1, 2, 3 No adverse event 25.5 <0.001 8.8 0.132 30 <0.001 11.1 <0.001
7 Bhargavi and Chaithanya (2018) 60/60 >18 Brahmi taila shirodhara NA Once daily Jala shirodhara NA Once daily 14 days 1, 13 Not mentioned 16.95 <0.001 12.7 <0.001 1.7 >0.05 1.9 >0.05
Tila taila shirodhara 7.85 <0.001 4.35 <0.001
8 Gajraj et al. (2020) 40/40 >18 Mansyadi yoga (MY) + Mansyadi kwath shirodhara (MS) MY: 2 g/d MY: 2 divided doses
MS: once daily		 Mansyadi yoga 2 g/d 2 divided doses 14 days 1, 3, 4, 5 Not mentioned 23.6 <0.001 12.1 <0.001 20.2 <0.001 10.7 <0.001
9 Tanna et al. (2024) 103/103 20–65 Capsule BP norm 1 g/d 2 divided doses Capsule BP norm + ongoing allopathic antihypertensive 500 mg/d 2 divided doses 4 weeks 1, 17 No adverse event 16.82 <0.001 13.71 <0.001 18.49 <0.001 13.95 <0.001
10 Prajapat et al. (2021) 40/40 18–70 Tagaradi kwatha 20 g/d 2 divided doses Tagaradi kwatha (TK) + shirodhara (SD) TK: 20 g/d TK: 2 divided doses
SD: once daily for 10 days		 30 days 1, 2 No adverse event 19 <0.001 10 <0.001 23.9 <0.001 11.3 <0.001
11 Patil et al. (2021) 40/40 >18 Mrudu samvahana (forehead massage) 20 min/d 7 days Takradhara (buttermilk dripping therapy) 40 min/d 7 days 15 days 1, 7 Not mentioned 22.2 <0.001 11.7 <0.001 29.4 <0.001 15.3 <0.001
12 Avhad et al. (2016) 102/91 25–65 Raktadushtihar yoga 4 g/d 2 divided doses Raktadushtihar yoga + ongoing allopathic antihypertensive 4 g/d 2 divided doses 1 month 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Not mentioned 19.57 <0.001 10.89 <0.001 22.07 <0.001 13.68 <0.001
13 Goyal and Rath (2020) 63/60 18–60 Ghana vati of polyherbal formulation 1 g/d 2 divided doses Extract of polyherbal formulation 1 g/d 2 divided doses 90 days 1, 2, 3, 5 Not mentioned 14.33 <0.001 6.33 <0.001 17.03 <0.001 8.33 <0.001
14 Manju et al. (2020) 30/30 30–60 Nitya virechana with trivrita churna 10 g/d Single dose Nitya virechana with aragvadha churna 10 g/d Single dose 30 days 1, 5, 11 No adverse event 9.2 <0.001 8.2 <0.001 10.47 <0.001 11.34 0.013
15 Murthy et al. (2000) 75/75 >18 Gokshura [Tribulus terrestris; Zygophyllaceae; Tribuli terrestris fructus] whole plant ghanasatwa (solid water extract) 3 g/d 3 divided doses Gokshura [Tribulus terrestris; Zygophyllaceae; Tribuli terrestris fructus] fruit ghanasatwa (solid water extract) 3 g/d 3 divided doses 4 weeks 1, 2, 3, 7 No adverse event 18.66 <0.01 9.18 <0.01 17.41 <0.02 7.97 <0.02
Control (lactose intraperitoneal administration) - - - - - - 2.68 >0.05 1.97 >0.05
16 Dhananjay (2003) 36/30 >18 Medhya rasayana 9 g/d 3 divided doses Kshiradhara (milk dripping therapy) 45 min - 2 months 1, 2, 3 Not mentioned 26.6 <0.001 11.6 <0.001 41.4 <0.001 14.4 <0.001
Medhya rasayana + kshiradhara - - - - - - 32.4 <0.001 12.2 <0.001
17 Ramesh (2003) 44/32 >18 Virechana (V) + shamana (S) V: As per bala and kostha
S: 4.5 g/d		 2 divided doses Shamana 4.5 g/d 2 divided doses 1 month 1, 2, 3, 5 Not mentioned 36.47 <0.001 22.94 <0.001 26.4 <0.001 19.07 <0.001
Open in a new tab
a

1-systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP, DBP), 2-clinical symptoms, 3-lipid profile, 4-liver function test, 5-kidney function test, 6-urine analysis, 7-pulse rate, 8-bodyweight, 9-quality of life, 10-neurohormone level, 11-serum electrolyte level, 12-angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) activity, 13-mean arterial pressure, 14-fibrinolytic activity, 15-Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) and/or Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). MD, mean difference.

3.2.4. Observational studies

Table 4 shows the details of three observational studies that documented BP outcomes following Ayurvedic treatments without control groups. Nandha et al. (2011) reported remarkable reductions in the SBP and DBP after 8 weeks of Rakatchaphar capsule use. Similarly, Ali et al. (2015) and Pradeep et al. (2014) demonstrated strong BP-lowering effects with Brahmyadi churna and Shilajatu as well as shirodhara and arjin tablet, respectively.

3.3. Risk of bias

The risk of bias evaluation was performed on the ten RCTs included in the meta-analysis. This assessment is summarized in Figure 2 that shows the risk of bias graph (the reviewers’ judgments about each of the items are presented as percentages across all included studies) and Figure 3 that shows the risk of bias summary based on the reviewers’ judgment about each item of each study.

FIGURE 2.

Bar chart showing risk assessment percentages for different protocols. Categories include overall bias, selection of reported results, outcome measurement, missing outcome data, intervention deviations, and randomization. Color-coded bars indicate low risk (green), some concerns (yellow), and high risk (red).

Open in a new tab

Graph depicting the risk of bias items.

FIGURE 3.

Risk assessment table for studies with indicators in five domains (D1 to D5). Colors represent risk levels: green for low risk, yellow for some concerns, and red for high risk. Studies are listed with their overall risk and domain-specific evaluations. Key: D1 - Randomisation process, D2 - Deviations from intended interventions, D3 - Missing outcome data, D4 - Measurement of the outcome, D5 - Selection of the reported result.

Open in a new tab

Summary of the risk of bias items and their levels of concern in different studies.

3.3.1. Randomization process

The ten studies included in these assessments had no baseline differences between the intervention groups, which is a sign of good randomization; however, all studies lacked allocation concealment. Among these works, the trial reported by Sobenin et al. (2009) was the only one with a low risk of bias.

3.3.2. Deviations from the intended interventions

Seven of the ten studies reported blinding (Herrera-Arellano et al., 2004; Ashraf et al., 2013; Sobenin et al., 2009; Panneerselvam et al., 2005; Verma et al., 2012; Nwachukwu et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2021), whereas the remaining three studies did not report blinding (Patil and Patel, 2020; Chaudhary et al., 2015; Nayak et al., 2015); Most studies reported a number of participants analysed with documented reasons for dropped outs except that of Sharma et al. (2021) were judged to have a low risk of bias.

3.3.3. Missing outcome data

The SBP and DBP data were available for all or nearly all participants randomized in six of the ten studies (Nwachukwu et al., 2015; Sobenin et al., 2009; Verma et al., 2012; Panneerselvam et al., 2005; Patil and Patel, 2020; Sharma et al., 2021), representing low risk of bias, whereas the remaining four studies reported some concerns due to attrition (Herrera-Arellano et al., 2004; Ashraf et al., 2013; Chaudhary et al., 2015; Nayak et al., 2015).

3.3.4. Measurement of outcome

Five of the ten studies reported appropriate methods of outcome measurement (Nwachukwu et al., 2015; Sobenin et al., 2009; Verma et al., 2012; Herrera-Arellano et al., 2004; Panneerselvam et al., 2005) and were thus judged to have a low risk of bias, whereas the remaining five studies reported some concerns owing to lack of blinding of the outcome assessors (Sharma et al., 2021; Nayak et al., 2015; Ashraf et al., 2013; Patil and Patel, 2020; Chaudhary et al., 2015).

3.3.5. Selection of the reported result

Nine of the ten studies presented results that were obtained using prespecified analysis plans (Nwachukwu et al., 2015; Verma et al., 2012; Sobenin et al., 2009; Ashraf et al., 2013; Herrera-Arellano et al., 2004; Panneerselvam et al., 2005; Chaudhary et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2021; Nayak et al., 2015).

3.3.6. Overall bias

Based on the five evaluation items discussed above, nine of the ten studies (Nwachukwu et al., 2015; Verma et al., 2012; Ashraf et al., 2013; Herrera-Arellano et al., 2004; Panneerselvam et al., 2005; Chaudhary et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2021; Nayak et al., 2015; Patil and Patel, 2020) showed concerns due to attrition rate, lack of randomization, blinding, etc.

3.4. Effectiveness assessment

We performed a meta-analysis using a total of ten RCTs that were further divided into two groups as Ayurveda vs. placebo and Ayurveda vs. active control.

3.4.1. Ayurveda vs. placebo

Three of the studies included in the meta-analysis (Nwachukwu et al., 2015; Sobenin et al., 2009; Verma et al., 2012) compared the effects of Ayurvedic interventions with those of placebo on EH. The forest plot of these studies illustrates the range of SBP and DBP values observed in the analysis. The pooled estimates show non-significant effects of the Ayurvedic interventions on the SBP (n = 118; MD = −2.63 mmHg, 95% CI = −6.04 to 0.79, p = 0.13; heterogeneity: I2 = 97%, χ2 = 78.15, p < 0.00001) (Figure 4) and DBP (n = 118; MD = −2.67 mmHg, 95% CI = −7.44 to 2.09, p = 0.27; heterogeneity: I2 = 98%, χ2 = 115.34, p < 0.00001) (Figure 5) compared to placebo. Although the effects were non-significant owing to high heterogeneity, two of the three trials favored Ayurveda over placebo.

FIGURE 4.

Forest plot comparing Ayurveda and placebo across three studies. The standardized mean differences and confidence intervals are shown: Daniel C et al. 2015, -2.84 (-3.62, -2.05); Sobenin I et al. 2009, 0.82 (0.13, 1.50); Surendra V et al. 2012, -6.12 (-7.93, -4.31). Overall effect is -2.63 (-6.04, 0.79) with significant heterogeneity (I² = 97%). The plot illustrates the effect sizes favoring either Ayurveda or placebo.

Open in a new tab

Standardized mean differences (MDs) for systolic blood pressure (Ayurveda vs. placebo).

FIGURE 5.

Forest plot comparing Ayurveda and placebo. Three studies show standard mean differences with confidence intervals: Daniel C et al. (-4.48), Sobenin I et al. (1.67), and Surendra V et al. (-5.29). Overall effect size is -2.67, not statistically significant. High heterogeneity noted (I² = 98%).

Open in a new tab

Standardized MDs for diastolic blood pressure (Ayurveda vs. placebo).

3.4.2. Ayurveda vs. active control

Eight of the ten studies included in the meta-analysis (Ashraf et al., 2013; Nwachukwu et al., 2015; Herrera-Arellano et al., 2004; Panneerselvam et al., 2005; Nayak et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2021; Patil and Patel, 2020; Chaudhary et al., 2015) compared the effects of Ayurvedic interventions with those of antihypertensive drugs on EH. The forest plot of these studies illustrates the range of SBP and DBP values observed in the analysis. The meta-analysis revealed non-significant effects of the Ayurvedic interventions on the SBP (n = 396; MD = −0.22 mmHg, 95% CI = −0.82 to 0.38, p = 0.47; heterogeneity: I2 = 88%, χ2 = 58.59, p < 0.00001) (Figure 6) and DBP (n = 396; MD = −0.66 mmHg, 95% CI = −1.67 to 0.35, p = 0.20; heterogeneity: I2 = 95%, χ2 = 142.17, p < 0.00001) (Figure 7) compared to active control. Although the effects were non-significant owing to high heterogeneity, five of these eight trials favored Ayurveda over standard antihypertensive treatment.

FIGURE 6.

Forest plot comparing Ayurveda and active control groups across multiple studies. Each study shows a standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals, depicted by green squares and horizontal lines. Overall effect size is marked by a diamond, indicating a standardized mean difference of negative zero point two two with confidence intervals between negative zero point eight two and zero point three eight, favoring neither treatment significantly. Heterogeneity test results indicate high heterogeneity with I squared at eighty-eight percent.

Open in a new tab

Standardized MDs for systolic blood pressure (Ayurveda vs. active control).

FIGURE 7.

Forest plot from a meta-analysis comparing Ayurveda and active control groups. It shows mean and standard deviation values for each study, with weight percentages and standardized mean differences. The total effect size is -0.66 with a confidence interval of -1.67 to 0.35. The diamond shape represents overall effect, with heterogeneity indicated by Tau², Chi², and I² values.

Open in a new tab

Standardized MDs for diastolic blood pressure (Ayurveda vs. active control).

3.4.3. Adverse events

The adverse events associated with the Ayurvedic interventions were also evaluated for the included studies. Of the 44 works analyzed in this review, 17 studies reported “no adverse events” narratively (Bharti et al., 1999; Sane et al., 2018; Kumawat et al., 2022; Hivale and Bhatted, 2018; Kar, 2014; Yadav et al., 2019; Ghaffari et al., 2020; Chaudhary et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2021; Mishra and Tubaki, 2019; Kylliang et al., 2019; Tanna et al., 2024; Prajapat et al., 2021; Manju et al., 2020; Murthy et al., 2000; Nandha et al., 2011; Ali et al., 2015), while 21 studies did not mention anything about adverse effects (Padhi et al., 2009; Gupta and Singh et al., 1995; Patel and Patel et al., 2024; Haji and Haji et al., 1999; Herrera-Arellano et al., 2004; Jalalyazdi et al., 2019; Panneerselvam et al., 2005; Verma et al., 2012; Patil and Patel, 2020; Bharathi and Swamy, 2005; Kundu et al., 2010; Shukla et al., 2013; Mishra et al., 2012; Bhargavi and Chaithanya, 2018; Gajraj et al., 2020; Patil et al., 2021; Avhad et al., 2016; Goyal and Rath, 2020; Dhananjay, 2003; Ramesh, 2003; Pradeep et al., 2014). A total of 33 adverse events were reported for the control group, of which four were attributed to Lisinopril (dry cough, dry mouth) (Herrera-Arellano et al., 2007; Nwachukwu et al., 2015), 23 were attributed to Hydrochlorothiazide (muscle pain, anorexia, constipation, and excess thirst) (Nayak et al., 2015), and six were attributed to the placebo (gastrointestinal discomfort, headache) (Ashraf et al., 2013; Dhawan and Jain, 2004; Sobenin et al., 2009). A total of 14 adverse events were reported in the Ayurvedic intervention group, of which two instances were attributable to the H. sabdariffa extract (nervousness) (Herrera-Arellano et al., 2007), three were attributable to the highest dose (1,500 mg/d) of garlic extract (heartburn) (Ashraf et al., 2013), two were attributable to the highest dose (2,400 mg/d) of Allicor and one in Kwai group (Sobenin et al., 2009), three were attributable to garlic pearls (gastrointestinal discomfort) (Dhawan and Jain, 2004), and three were attributable to B. diffusa extract (Nayak et al., 2015). No adverse events were noted in the groups receiving interventions in the classical forms, such as powder and decoction.

4. Discussion

This systematic review with meta-analysis presents a thorough assessment of the impacts of various Ayurvedic interventions on the SBP and DBP metrics in individuals with EH. A total of 44 studies were included in the systematic review, of which ten RCTs were found to be suitable for the meta-analysis. These studies encompass a wide array of Ayurvedic practices, including administration of single herbs, polyherbal formulations, Panchakarma therapies (e.g., Virechana and Basti), and combinations with other modalities like shirodhara.

The aggregated results from the RCTs comparing Ayurvedic to placebo interventions revealed no statistically significant reductions in the SBP or DBP, although the trends favored Ayurveda. However, the high heterogeneity (I2 > 95%) among the studies undermines the reliability of these findings; this heterogeneity may be attributed to variations in the herbal formulations, dosages, intervention durations, and participant characteristics. Additionally, the lack of placebo standardization and small sample sizes limited the statistical power and internal validity of the studies.

Similarly, when the Ayurvedic interventions were evaluated against standard antihypertensive treatments, the meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the SBP or DBP. Nonetheless, several individual studies documented clinically significant reductions in BP with Ayurvedic therapies that were comparable to the effects achieved with modern pharmacotherapy. These findings suggest the non-inferiority potential of Ayurveda that may have implications for patients seeking holistic or alternative care, particularly in cases where modern medications are contraindicated or poorly tolerated.

Numerous studies have also identified the advantages of Ayurveda on the lipid profile, liver and kidney functions, neurohormonal balance, and quality of life indicators, which are not considered in the current meta-analysis but warrant further investigations (Patel and Patel, 2024; Ghaffari et al., 2020; Sobenin et al., 2009; Bharathi and Swamy, 2005). These pleiotropic effects are consistent with the holistic pathophysiological framework of Ayurveda, which prioritizes multitarget strategies and systemic equilibrium over isolated symptomatic relief. Notably, no significant adverse effects were reported in any of the studies, underscoring the potential safety of Ayurvedic interventions when applied appropriately.

The risk of bias assessment indicated that although randomization was generally adequate, several of the studies lacked allocation concealment and blinding, particularly with regard to the outcome assessors. This drawback introduces the potential for performance and detection biases. Additionally, selective reporting and insufficient methodological transparency undermine confidence in these results.

Adverse events were found more often with the standard antihypertensive drugs used in the active control group than the Ayurvedic interventions. All of the adverse events reported for the Ayurvedic interventions were associated with extracts of single drugs and mostly at their high doses. Additionally, there were no notable adverse events for interventions administered in their classical forms, such as powder, decoction, and tablet. Hence, further studies are needed to evaluate the safety of classical Ayurvedic formulations compared to extracts of single drugs.

Given the global prevalence of hypertension and the associated challenges with adherence, side effects, and accessibility of conventional antihypertensive treatments, we propose that Ayurveda may offer a viable integrative or complementary approach to the management of hypertension. This is particularly relevant in low-resource settings or among populations that favor traditional medical systems. Nevertheless, the current body of evidence is limited by methodological constraints, including small sample sizes, lack of blinding, lack of allocation concealment, short intervention durations, and selective reporting.

This review demonstrates several strengths, including strict adherence to PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search encompassing both mainstream and Ayurvedic databases, and well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, the review is limited by the predominance of single-center studies, small sample sizes, non-uniform outcome measures, and short intervention durations.

4.1. Recommendations for future research

Given our findings in this survey, we offer some recommendations for future research. To substantiate the efficacy and safety of specific Ayurvedic interventions, it is imperative to conduct larger multicenter double-blind RCTs by employing rigorous methodologies. Long-term follow-up studies are also crucial to assess the sustainability of BP control and to evaluate the cardiovascular outcomes. Furthermore, the development of standardized protocols for Ayurvedic treatments and reporting guidelines would enhance the quality of evidence and facilitate cross-study comparisons. To fortify the evidence base, there is a pressing need for rigorously designed, adequately powered, multicenter RCTs with standardized intervention protocols, validated outcome measures, and extended follow-up periods. Such studies should also investigate the mechanistic insights, pharmacodynamic interactions, and comparative efficacies of Ayurvedic interventions against or as add-ons to contemporary antihypertensive therapies.

5. Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis involved evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic interventions in EH. Although the pooled results from the RCTs did not show statistically significant reductions in the SBP or DBP metrics compared to placebo or standard antihypertensive therapies, several individual studies have demonstrated clinically meaningful effects favoring Ayurvedic drugs. These interventions were generally well tolerated, with fewer and milder adverse events observed at higher doses of single-drug extracts than conventional medications. However, the overall certainty of evidence is limited by the high heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and methodological shortcomings in the included studies. Hence, well-designed, large-scale, and multicenter randomized trials with standardized protocols are required to establish the efficacies, safeties, and long-term benefits of Ayurvedic interventions in the management of hypertension.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Director General of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, New Delhi, India, for the support and guidance.

Funding Statement

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Footnotes

Edited by: Javier Echeverria, University of Santiago, Chile

Reviewed by: Gawel Solowski, Bingöl University, Türkiye

Hossein Sheibani, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

SD: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. KC: Writing – review and editing. AA: Writing – review and editing. GR: Writing – review and editing. BR: Writing – review and editing. NS: Writing – review and editing. RA: Writing – review and editing.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1695614/full#supplementary-material

Supplementaryfile1.docx (26.9KB, docx)

References

  1. Ali A., Umar D., Farhan M., Basheer B., Baroudi K. (2015). Effect of brahmyadi churna (brahmi, shankhapushpi, jatamansi, jyotishmati, vacha, ashwagandha) and tablet shilajatu in essential hypertension: an observational study. J. Adv. Pharm. Technol. Res. 6, 148–153. 10.4103/2231-4040.165015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anchala R., Kannuri N. K., Pant H., Khan H., Franco O. H., Di Angelantonio E., et al. (2014). Hypertension in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, awareness, and control of hypertension. J. Hypertens. 32 (6), 1170–1177. 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arima H., Barzi F., Chalmers J. (2011). Mortality patterns in hypertension. J. Hypertens. 29 (Suppl. 1), S3–S7. 10.1097/01.hjh.0000410246.59221.b1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashraf R., Khan R. A., Ashraf I., Qureshi A. A. (2013). Effects of Allium sativum (garlic) on systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 26 (5), 859–863. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Avhad A. D., Walinjkar M., Dwivedi R., Vyas H. (2016). Management of essential hypertension with raktadushtihar yoga. Ann. Ayurvedic Med. 5 (3-4), 88–97. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bharathi K., Swamy R. K. (2005). Management of vyanabala vaisamya (essential hypertension) with indigenous drugs: a comparative study. J. Res. Ayurveda Siddha 26 (3–4), 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bhargavi M., Chaithanya K. (2018). A comparative clinical evaluation of sirodhara with sukhosnajala, tila tailam and brahmi tailam in the management of mild to moderate essential hypertension. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. Sci. 3, 13–20. 10.21760/jaims.v3i3.12870 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bharti A. K., Bikshapati T. (2006). Evaluation of efficacy of arjuna vachadi yoga in vyana bala vaishamya (Hypertension) - a clinical Study. JRAS 27 (1-2), 57–66. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bharti S., Shahi V. K., Gupta S. (1999). The effect of arjuna vacadi yoga in vyana bala vaishamya—a clinical study. J. Res. Ayurveda Siddha 20 (3–4), 148–157. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bostrom A. E., Mwinyi J., Voisin S., Wu W., Schultes B., Zhang K., et al. (2016). Longitudinal genome-wide methylation study of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients reveals novel CpG sites associated with essential hypertension. BMC Med. Genomics 9, 20. 10.1186/s12920-016-0180-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Carretero O. A., Oparil S. (2000). Essential hypertension. Part I: definition and etiology. Circulation 101 (3),. 10.1161/01.cir.101.3.329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chaudhary V., Rohila R. (2015). Evaluation of an Ayurvedic formulation in the management of essential hypertension in elderly patients. Int. J. Ayur Pharma Res. 3 (1), 72–77. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chobanian A. V., Bakris G. L., Black H. R., Cushman W. C., Green L. A., Izzo Jr J. L., et al. (2003). The seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 289 (19), 2560–2572. 10.1001/jama.289.19.2560 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Choudhary K., Gundeti M., Dave P., Goel S., Ahmad A., Reddy R. G., et al. (2023). Effectiveness and safety of ayurveda intervention in children and adolescent with ADHD: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J. Herb. Med. 42, 100772. 10.1016/j.hermed.2023.100772 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Deshmukh S., Mundada P., Saketh T., Gundeti M. (2019). A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of ayurvedic interventions for essential hypertension. J. Res. Ayurvedic Sci. 3 (1), 17–21. 10.5005/jras-10064-0072 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dhananjay S. (2003). “Clinical study on the role of virechana karma and sarpagandha Ghana vati in the management of uccharaktachapa (essential hypertension),” in Ayurvedic research database (7th ed., 2001–2018). Jamnagar, India: Gujarat Ayurved University. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dhawan V., Jain S. (2004). Effect of garlic supplementation on oxidized low density lipoproteins and lipid peroxidation in patients of essential hypertension. Mol. Cell Biochem. 266 (1-2), 109–115. 10.1023/b:mcbi.0000049146.89059.53 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gajraj V., Sharma B., Parashar R. (2020). A clinical evaluation of ‘Mansyadi Yoga’ and ‘Mansyadi Kwath Shirodhara’ in the management of raktagata vata w.s.r. to essential hypertension. World J. Pharm. Res. 9 (12), 1168–1184. 10.20959/wjpr202012-18843 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ghaffari S., Navabzadeh M., Ziaee M., Ghobadi A., Ghods R., Hashem-Dabaghian F. (2020). A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of emblica officinalis in uncontrolled hypertension. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2020, 8592869. 10.1155/2020/8592869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Goyal A., Rath S. K. (2020). Evaluation of ayurvedic formulation- NIA/DG/2015/01 in the sustainable management of newly diagnosed stage-1 essential hypertension. World J. Pharm. Res. 9 (12), 1236–1243. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gupta P. K., Singh R. H. (1995). A study on the effect of lekhan - vasti in cases of essential hypertension and ischaemic heart disease. JRAS 16 (3-4), 93–101. [Google Scholar]
  22. Haji F., Haji T. (1999). The effect of sour tea (Hibiscus sabdariffa) on essential hypertension. J. Ethnopharmacol. 65, 231–236. 10.1016/s0378-8741(98)00157-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Herrera-Arellano A., Flores-Romero S., Chávez-Soto M. A., Tortoriello J. (2004). Effectiveness and tolerability of a standardized extract from Hibiscus sabdariffa in patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a controlled and randomized clinical trial. Phytomedicine 11 (5), 375–382. 10.1016/j.phymed.2004.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Herrera-Arellano A., Miranda-Sánchez J., Avila-Castro P., Herrera-Alvarez S., Jiménez-Ferrer E., Zamilpa A., et al. (2007). Clinical effects produced by a standardized herbal medicinal product of Hibiscus sabdariffa on patients with hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, lisinopril-controlled clinical trial. Planta Med. 73 (1), 6–12. 10.1055/s-2006-957065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Higgins J. P., Green S. (2009). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archiv für experimentelle Pathologie und Pharmakologie 2011. S38. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hivale U. S., Bhatted S. (2018). Effect of triphaladi virechana karma in the management of essential hypertension. J. Ayurveda 12 (1), 68–75. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hypertension Writing Group of Chinese (2016). 2010 chinese guidelines for the management of hypertension, Chin. J. Hypertens. 19 (08), 701–743. 10.16439/j.cnki.1673-7245.2011.08.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jalalyazdi M., Ramezani J., Izadi-Moud A., Madani-Sani F., Shahlaei S., Ghiasi S. S. (2019). Effect of hibiscus sabdariffa on blood pressure in patients with stage 1 hypertension. J. Adv. Pharm. Technol. Res. 10, 107–111. 10.4103/japtr.JAPTR_402_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kamble S. S., Khuje S., Dwivedi O. P., Jain J. (2018). Concept of essential hypertension in ayurvedic perspectives. J. Drug Deliv. Ther. 8 (6-s), 407–410. 10.22270/jddt.v8i6-s.2144 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kar P. K. (2014). Role of abhyanga in hypertension. J. Ayurveda 8 (4), 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  31. Khapre M., Dhanlika D., Mohanty S., Mehndiratta A. (2025). The effect of shirodhara on essential hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Educ. Health Promot. 14, 28. 10.4103/jehp.jehp_464_24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kumawat V. B., Yadav B., Vijayan A., Jain A., Das J. R., Sharma B. S., et al. (2022). Safety and efficacy of rudraksha churna in the treatment of essential hypertension—a prospective single-arm multicentre trial. J. Res. Ayurvedic Sci. 6, 4–10. 10.4103/jras.jras_50_21 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kundu C., Shukla V. D., Santwani M. A., Bhatt N. N. (2010). The role of psychic factors in pathogenesis of essential hypertension and its management by shirodhara and sarpagandha vati. AYU 31 (4), 436–441. 10.4103/0974-8520.82035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kylliang A. K., Acharya S., Hegde V. (2019). A clinical study on the effect of ashwagandhadi churna in the management of rakta-gata-vata with special reference to essential hypertension. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. Sci. 5, 79–85. 10.21760/jaims.4.5.15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Manju M., Sawarkar P., Pathade A., Palsodkar P. (2020). A comparative clinical study on nitya virechana with trivrita and aragvadha churna in the management of essential hypertension. Wutan Huatan Jisuan Jishu 16 (12), 602–611. [Google Scholar]
  36. Menon M., Shukla A. (2018). Understanding hypertension in the light of ayurveda. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. 9 (4), 302–307. 10.1016/j.jaim.2017.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Messerli F. H., Williams B., Ritz E. (2007). Essential hypertension. Lancet 370, 591–603. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61299-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mishra D., Tubaki B. R. (2019). Effect of brahmi vati and sarpagandha Ghana vati in management of essential hypertension - a randomized, double blind, clinical study. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. 10 (4), 269–276. 10.1016/j.jaim.2017.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mishra J., Joshi N. P., Pandya D. M. (2012). A comparative study of shankhapushpyadi Ghana vati and sarpagandhadi Ghana vati in the management of “Essential Hypertension.”. AYU 33 (1), 54–61. 10.4103/0974-8520.100311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Murthy A. R., Dubey S. D., Tripathi K. (2000). Anti-hypertensive effect of gokshura (Tribulus terrestris linn.): a clinical study. Anc. Sci. Life 19 (3–4), 139–145. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Nandha R., Singh H., Moudgill P., Kular G. (2011). A pilot study to clinically evaluate the role of herbomineral compound “Rakatchap Har” in the management of essential hypertension. AYU 32 (3), 329–332. 10.4103/0974-8520.93908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nayak S., Nayak S., Dash D. P., Das B. (2015). A clinical study on the effect of Boerhaavia diffusa (punarnava) in essential hypertension. AYUSHDHARA 2 (6), 390–396. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nwachukwu D. C., Aneke E. I., Obika L. F., Nwachukwu N. Z. (2015). Effects of aqueous extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa on the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system of Nigerians with mild to moderate essential hypertension: a comparative study with lisinopril. Indian J. Pharmacol. 47, 540–545. 10.4103/0253-7613.165194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Padhi M. M., Das B., Srinivas P., Kori V. K., Nanda G. C., Rao M. M., et al. (2009). Efficacy of vyanabala vaishamya (hypertension) – a clinical study. JRAS 30 (3), 65–74. [Google Scholar]
  45. Panneerselvam J., Sambandam G., Nalini N. (2005). Single- or double-blind treatment with balsamodendron mukul and nifedipine in hypertensive patients. J. Clin. Hypertens. (Greenwich). 7 (6), 340–345. 10.1111/j.1524-6175.2006.04281.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Patel R. K., Patel A. (2024). Efficacy of virechana karma in the management of uccha rakta chapa (essential hypertension) – a clinical study. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. Sci. 9 (10), 1–8. 10.21760/jaims.9.10.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Patil S. B., Patel S. K. (2020). Open randomised controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of karsha vati and telmisartan in the management of essential hypertension: a pilot study. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. Sci. 5 (5), 604–612. [Google Scholar]
  48. Patil A., Grampurohit P. L., Skandhan K. P., Angadi V. B. (2021). Efficacy of mrudu samvahana (forehead massage) over takra dhara (buttermilk dripping therapy) in anxiety and stress induced essential hypertension – a randomized clinical trial. Int. J. Life Sci. Pharma Res. 11 (6), L8–L13. 10.22376/ijpbs/lpr.2021.11.6.L8-13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Pradeep B. C., Rajendra V., Gajanana H. (2014). An observational study on efficacy of ksheerabala taila Shirodhara and Tab arjin in the management of essential hypertension. Unique J. Ayurvedic Herb. Med. 2 (6), 40–43. [Google Scholar]
  50. Prajapat P., Bishnoi S., Mishra P. K., Sharma I. (2021). A clinical study of ‘Tagaradi Kwatha’ and ‘Takra Amalaki Shirodhara’ in the management of ‘Uccha Rakta Chapa’ W.S.R to essential hypertension. World J. Pharm. Res. 10 (12), 1778–1794. 10.20959/wjpr202112-21815 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. PRISMA (2020). PRISMA transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Available online at: http:/www.prisma-statement.org.
  52. Ramakrishnan S., Zachariah G., Gupta K., Shivkumar Rao J. S., Mohanan P. P., Venugopal K., et al. (2019). Prevalence of hypertension among Indian adults: results from the great India blood pressure survey. Indian Heart J. 71, 309–313. 10.1016/j.ihj.2019.09.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Ramesh B. (2003). “Role of virechana karma and shamana chikitsa in the management of uccharaktachapa (essential Hypertension),” in Ayurvedic research database (7th ed., 2001–2018). Jamnagar, India: Gujarat Ayurved University. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sane R., Dawkhar S., Ambulkar P., Mandole R. (2018). The effect of a polyherbal oral formulation in the management of essential hypertension: an open label, pilot clinical study. Int. J. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. 7 (7), 1427–1431. 10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20182694 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sharma M., Sharma H. R., Takalkar K., Meshram K. (2021). Effectiveness of shamak yoga on essential hypertension in comparison with atenolol: a randomized controlled trial. Res. J. Pharm. Technol. 14 (9), 4925–4928. 10.52711/0974-360x.2021.00856 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shastri A. D. (2017). Sushruta samhita, chikitsasthana. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, 214. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shukla G., Bhatted S. K., Dave A. R., Shukla V. D. (2013). Efficacy of virechana and basti karma with shamana therapy in the management of essential hypertension: a comparative study. Ayu 34 (1), 70–76. 10.4103/0974-8520.115455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Sobenin I. A., Andrianova I. V., Fomchenkov I. V., Gorchakova T. V., Orekhov A. N. (2009). Time-released garlic powder tablets lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure in men with mild and moderate arterial hypertension. Hypertens. Res. 32 (6), 433–437. 10.1038/hr.2009.36 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Sridharan K., Mohan R., Ramaratnam S., Panneerselvam D. (2011). Ayurvedic treatments for diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 12, CD008288. 10.1002/14651858.CD008288.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Tanna I. R., Goyal M., Chandola H. M. (2024). Clinical evaluation of capsule BP Norm in the management of essential hypertension: a preliminary open-label parallel group study. AYU 45, 86–95. 10.4103/ayu.ayu_325_23 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Verma S. K., Jain V., Singh D. P. (2012). Effect of Pueraria tuberosa DC. (indian kudzu) on blood pressure, fibrinolysis and oxidative stress in patients with stage 1 hypertension. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 15 (15), 742–747. 10.3923/pjbs.2012.742.747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. World Health Organization (2025). Hypertension in India – WHO | regional office for south-east Asia. New Delhi: WHO India. Available online at: https://www.who.int/india/health-topics/hypertension. [Google Scholar]
  63. Yadav R., Singh J. P., Sahu A. K. (2018). Clinical study of aqueous extract of Eclipta alba in management of essential hypertension. 13(4):35–42. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementaryfile1.docx (26.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Articles from Frontiers in Pharmacology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES