# Purple coneflower: alkylamides, CB2, and the limits of immune effects

- Canonical: https://nutrifit.health/knowledge/echinacea-purpurea-alkylamides-cannabinoid-cb2-macrophages
- Language: en
- Published: 2026-10-09T05:58:28.463Z
- Updated: 2026-10-09T05:58:28.463Z
- Author: NutriFit Editorial

> Echinacea alkylamide chemistry, CB2-dependent and independent cellular responses, human pharmacokinetics, and mixed clinical findings, with limits on extrapolation.

Echinacea is best understood not as a single “immune booster,” but as a mixture of molecules with different solubility, availability, and cellular targets. Lipophilic alkylamides can interact with the cannabinoid system; polysaccharide fractions and phenolic compounds are studied with other methods. Several distinct questions separate CB2 binding in a membrane preparation, a cytokine change in culture, and prevention of a cold in people. Keeping those questions apart explains why a persuasive cellular mechanism can coexist with mixed clinical findings.

## 1. The plant, plant part, and extract define what is being studied

The name *Echinacea* does not define a product’s composition. Medical studies mainly use *E. purpurea*, *E. angustifolia*, and *E. pallida*, and root, aerial parts, fresh juice, water infusion, and hydroalcoholic extract are not interchangeable. Species and plant part affect the proportions of alkylamides, caffeic-acid derivatives, polysaccharides, and other constituents. This is not a ranking of “better” plants: interpreting a study requires identifying the material that actually reached the cells or participants.

In *E. purpurea*, cichoric and caftaric acids are important phenolic markers; echinacoside is more often used to characterize other species and plant parts. Lipophilic fractions contain a set of unsaturated amides, while hydrophilic fractions include heterogeneous carbohydrate and glycoprotein components. Relative amounts vary with genotype, cultivation, harvest time, drying, storage, and solvent. Two products labeled “500 mg echinacea” can therefore provide substantially different alkylamide amounts.

Enzymatic and oxidative changes in the phenolic fraction can occur during drying and extraction. Alkylamides should not be assumed to be absolutely stable either: their unsaturated chains and double-bond configurations make oxidation and isomerization possible. Raw-material descriptions should therefore be accompanied by batch identity and an analytical profile after manufacture, rather than only a botanical name. Spelman and colleagues studied differences between fresh and dried material chromatographically; that does not establish that any tincture is clinically superior to any tablet.

Standardization may use HPLC with UV/diode-array detection and liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. These methods separate compounds and estimate their amounts, but a peak with a particular mass does not establish the geometry of every isomer. Appropriate standards, separation conditions, and, for structural questions, additional methods are needed. An analytical marker supports reproducibility of composition; it does not automatically prove activity of the whole mixture or the quality of a clinical trial.

| Description level | What should be reported | Why this alone cannot establish benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Botanical material | Species, plant part, fresh or dried material | Composition may change during extraction |
| Extract | Solvent, drug-to-extract ratio, batch | Extract mass is not the mass of active alkylamide |
| Chemical profile | Individual alkylamides, phenolic markers, impurities | One marker does not describe every cellular target |
| Pharmacokinetics | Analyte, dose, time, plasma concentration | Exposure is not clinical efficacy |
| Clinical trial | Population, formulation, outcome, comparator | The result applies to the studied product and conditions |

## 2. Alkylamide chemistry and resemblance to endocannabinoids

A typical echinacea alkylamide contains an unsaturated hydrocarbon acyl fragment and an amide group linked to a small alkyl group, often isobutyl. The simplified notation R–C(=O)–NH–R′ shows the amide bond but not the positions of all double and triple bonds. In the names of dodecatetraenoyl isobutylamides, labels such as 2E, 4E, 8Z, and 10E/Z specify the position and geometry of unsaturated regions. These differences change conformational ensembles and protein interactions; compounds cannot be treated as equivalent merely because they are called “alkylamides.”

The plant also contains dienic, trienic, and diynic derivatives. Numbering such as “alkylamide 8” or “alkylamide 9” depends on the scheme used in a particular publication; it is not a universal compound name. Full chemical names or unambiguous analytical standards are preferable for reproducibility. An E/Z-isomer mixture may behave differently from an isolated compound, and an extract may behave differently from the sum of its most abundant peaks.

Anandamide, the endogenous N-arachidonoylethanolamine, also combines a lipophilic chain with an amide head group. This topological resemblance helps researchers explore receptor interactions, but does not make a plant alkylamide anandamide. Its chain length, unsaturation geometry, and nitrogen substituent differ. By contrast, 2-arachidonoylglycerol is a glycerol ester and has a different chemical architecture. Similar functional groups do not prove identical FAAH degradation, metabolites, or activity across all endocannabinoid targets.

An amide bond differs from an easily hydrolyzed ester because of resonance stabilization and geometry. Yet stability in solution does not answer how the compound is metabolized in the liver: side-chain oxidation, conjugation, and transporter interactions may change exposure. A lipophilicity calculation can generate a distribution hypothesis, but does not replace measurement of the free concentration and tissue access. For a molecule that binds proteins and membranes, total plasma concentration can differ substantially from the concentration at a receptor.

## 3. What CB2 interaction actually means

CB2, encoded by *CNR2*, is a seven-transmembrane G-protein-coupled receptor. It is studied in several immune cells, but its expression and functional role vary with cell type and activation state. CB1, encoded by *CNR1*, is especially important in neuronal cannabinoid effects; the distribution of the two receptors should not be reduced to the absolute rule “CB1 only in the brain, CB2 only in the periphery.” Microglia and other tissue cells add further contexts.

A radioligand experiment asks whether a compound displaces a known ligand in a selected membrane system. In a competitive model, affinity estimates are corrected for radioligand concentration and its dissociation constant; IC₅₀ alone is not Ki. Receptor expression, nonspecific binding of a lipophilic molecule, solvent, and whether equilibrium was reached all affect the result. A value from one assay therefore cannot be assigned to an entire extract or to every isomer.

Raduner and colleagues reported receptor-dependent and receptor-independent effects of individual alkylamides. An important part of their result was that suppression of LPS-induced cytokine responses also occurred with a compound lacking corresponding CB2 binding. This challenges the assumption that all immune activity of echinacea follows one arrow from CB2. For each outcome, binding, functional response, and receptor dependence need to be demonstrated separately.

Agonists, partial agonists, antagonists, and inverse agonists have different effects on receptor activity. Binding does not necessarily produce maximal signaling, and a cell with receptor reserve may respond differently from a primary macrophage. Functional selectivity is assessed by comparing multiple pathways with suitable controls; a change in one cytokine does not prove “biased agonism.” Preferential CB2 binding also does not independently establish that an extract has no central effects of any kind.

Crystallographic and cryo-electron microscopy structures of CB2 have clarified the binding pocket and transitions to active Gi complexes. Li and colleagues studied the receptor with a particular synthetic ligand, not a complex with every echinacea alkylamide. Docking a plant molecule into such a structure remains a computational hypothesis. A list of contacts with Phe or Trp should not be presented as an experimentally established pose without a structure of that specific complex or concordant mutational and functional tests.

[![Two possible cellular-response branches from an Echinacea preparation: CB2-dependent and CB2-independent, with stimulus, concentration, and timing tested separately. TNF-α mRNA and protein are distinct; Gertsch observed increased cAMP in that system.](https://api.nutrifit.health/api/v2/public/knowledge/files/images/nutrifit-scientific-20261009-echinacea-purpurea-alkylamides-cannabinoid-cb2-macrophages-echinacea-mechanism-context-0644f765f155.png)](https://api.nutrifit.health/api/v2/public/knowledge/files/images/nutrifit-scientific-20261009-echinacea-purpurea-alkylamides-cannabinoid-cb2-macrophages-echinacea-mechanism-context-0644f765f155.png)

## 4. Macrophage signaling depends on stimulus and timing

In canonical Gi/o coupling, a receptor influences adenylyl cyclase, while Gβγ and downstream nodes may regulate kinases, ion channels, and migration. Adenylyl cyclase converts ATP to cAMP; phosphodiesterases break cAMP down to AMP. Responses depend on isoforms, other receptors, and the time of measurement. All echinacea experiments cannot be explained by an obligatory fall in cAMP followed by PKA inactivation and the same change in NF-κB.

In the primary study by Gertsch and colleagues using human monocytes/macrophages, the extract induced TNF-α mRNA without corresponding new protein production. For LPS-stimulated TNF-α, early suppression was accompanied by a more prolonged late response. The authors linked some changes to CB2, increased cAMP, and several signaling pathways, including MAPK and transcription factors. This is a context-specific result that contradicts the universal model “alkylamide always lowers cAMP and switches inflammation off.”

In an LPS model, TLR4 and accessory proteins organize a distinct innate signal. LPS concentration and source, the order in which extract and stimulus are added, exposure duration, and cell maturity all matter. Plant or microbial impurities may also change the response; especially when hydrophilic fractions are studied, an ingredient’s effect should be distinguished from endotoxin. Viability controls are needed to ensure that lower secretion does not simply reflect cell death.

NF-κB regulates transcription of many genes, but protein abundance, phosphorylation, nuclear localization, DNA binding, and target-gene expression are different measurements. Likewise, a change in p38, JNK, or ERK does not automatically indicate the direction of a clinical effect. A kinase inhibitor can help investigate pathway involvement, but its selectivity and other cellular effects limit causal conclusions. Agreement across several methods and genetic interventions is more persuasive.

PPARγ is a nuclear receptor, not membrane CB2. Spelman and colleagues’ study of a specific diynic alkylamide examined PPARγ involvement in suppression of IL-2 in a T-cell context. This does not mean every echinacea constituent directly binds PPARγ or turns every macrophage into an anti-inflammatory phenotype. Cell type, molecule, and endpoint must remain distinct.

## 5. Phagocytosis, efferocytosis, and “polarization” are not the same measure

Phagocytosis involves particle recognition, uptake, phagosome maturation, and subsequent processing. Surface binding of a fluorescent particle can look like uptake unless these steps are distinguished. A phagocytic index depends on the method: the number of positive cells, particles per cell, signal intensity, or viable microbes remaining after exposure. Percentages should not be compared across experiments without this information.

The actin cytoskeleton, Rac1, Cdc42, and other regulators participate in uptake, but their general role does not prove that a particular alkylamide activated each through CB2. Studies of other cannabinoid ligands or receptors show different mechanisms. For example, Mai and colleagues’ model identified CB1, not CB2, in a specific phagocytosis pathway. It is a useful warning against transferring a general signaling diagram to any echinacea product.

Goel and colleagues studied alkylamides and alveolar macrophage function in normal rats. This supports an experimental immune effect in a defined model, but does not establish the same increase in viral clearance in people. Particle uptake, elimination of an infectious pathogen, and reduction of respiratory symptoms require different studies. For some viruses, macrophage contact may also participate in pathology; “phagocytosis” alone does not guarantee benefit.

Efferocytosis is the recognition and removal of dying cells, including apoptotic neutrophils. It contributes to inflammatory resolution but differs from bacterial uptake. Studies of CB2 using synthetic agonists, amyloid material, or tumor cells are not trials of echinacea alkylamides in human lungs. Extrapolation would require confirmed exposure, receptor involvement, and measurement of the relevant cellular outcome.

M1 and M2 labels are convenient for selected culture conditions, but tissue macrophages occupy more varied states. CD206 expression or a reduction in one inflammatory cytokine does not prove a complete shift into a single beneficial program. Excessive suppression may impair infection defense, while some repair-associated states may support fibrosis or a tumor environment. Effect direction should therefore be assessed alongside disease, timing, and functional outcomes.

| Measurement | What can be concluded | What remains a separate question |
|---|---|---|
| Uptake of a labeled particle | A selected uptake step changed | Was a live pathogen killed? |
| TNF-α change | The response changed under this stimulus and timing | Did the infection course improve? |
| Increased CD206 marker | One cellular feature changed | What was the full tissue function? |
| Removal of apoptotic cells | An efferocytosis assay changed | Were complications prevented in people? |

## 6. Pharmacokinetics: detection in plasma is not yet a therapeutic concentration

Lipophilic alkylamides have been studied in Caco-2 monolayers and human pharmacokinetic experiments. An enterocyte-barrier model helps compare compound transport, but does not reproduce mucus, food, microbiota, complete metabolism, or all intestinal segments. Passage through a monolayer does not establish absolute bioavailability without an appropriate comparison of administered doses and systemic clearance. Phenolic conjugates and polysaccharides need their own analytical and metabolic models.

In 2005, Woelkart and colleagues studied a 60% ethanol extract of *E. angustifolia* root in 11 healthy participants in an open, single-dose crossover experiment. After 2.5 mL, the peak of the measured dodecatetraenoyl isobutylamide mixture was 10.88 ng/mL at about 30 minutes. This describes a particular extract and measured analytes, not a universal range for all echinacea. Other *E. purpurea* formulations have also been compared pharmacokinetically; differences in composition and formulation must be preserved when comparing them.

To convert mass concentration to molarity, use the molecular mass of the specific compound: concentration in nM = concentration in ng/mL × 1000 / molecular mass in g/mol. But a mixture of isomers measured by an assay is not always the concentration of one active ligand. Comparing it with Ki requires caveats about free fraction, receptor system, and matrix. Detection in plasma confirms systemic access; the term “therapeutic concentration” requires an established link between exposure and clinical effect.

An early peak after a liquid product does not prove that absorption occurred exclusively through the oral mucosa. Holding a dose in the mouth, later swallowing it, and intestinal absorption can all contribute. Separating these routes quantitatively requires an appropriate design, not only a short Tmax. Nor should all tablets be considered less available, or a polysaccharide fraction biologically meaningless simply because a large polymer is not detected unchanged in blood: local intestinal interactions are a separate question.

Metabolism and interactions are also product-specific. In a study by Gorski and colleagues, 12 healthy volunteers received *E. purpurea* root extract at 400 mg four times daily for eight days. Probe-substrate testing found different changes in intestinal and hepatic CYP3A; the result for intravenous midazolam differed from that for oral midazolam. This is not universal “suppression of all CYP enzymes,” nor a guarantee that interactions are absent. The finding warrants attention for medicines with a narrow therapeutic range, but cannot predict the effect of every current supplement from its label.

## 7. Respiratory studies: positive and negative findings

Clinical evaluation should distinguish prevention of new episodes, treatment of an established cold, influenza-like illness, and laboratory-confirmed infection. Episode frequency, number of people who become ill, symptom duration, total days ill, and complications are different outcomes. A subgroup with recurrent infections does not automatically represent the whole population, and symptom improvement does not prove CB2 involvement.

In Jawad’s 2012 study, 755 healthy adults were assigned to four months of a particular hydroalcoholic *E. purpurea* extract or placebo. The product contained 95% aerial parts and 5% root; the preventive schedule was 0.9 mL three times daily and, during a cold, five times daily. The study recorded 149 versus 188 episodes and 672 versus 850 cumulative days ill. The authors reported statistical significance for cumulative days. These are accumulated group events, not proof that each person had the same fraction of infections prevented. High-adherence analyses were exploratory; exclusions at enrollment limit transfer to people with severe chronic conditions.

Other primary trials reported negative results. Turner and colleagues studied chemically characterized *E. angustifolia* root extracts during experimental rhinovirus infection and did not show convincing prevention of infection or improvement in clinical course. Barrett’s trial, with several comparison groups for the common cold, also did not establish statistically significant benefit of the studied formulation on its main outcomes. These data should not be dismissed because another extract interacts with CB2; at the same time, they do not prove all plant preparations are identical.

Taylor and colleagues’ double-blind, placebo-controlled pediatric trial analyzed 707 respiratory episodes in 407 children aged 2–11 years. Treatment began with symptoms and continued for up to ten days. Duration and overall severity did not differ; rash was recorded in 7.1% of echinacea episodes versus 2.7% with placebo. This is an important negative result with a safety signal for the studied formulation and age range, not a reason to transfer an adult prevention schedule to children.

Rauš’s 2015 study included 473 patients aged 12–70 years with early influenza symptoms, within 48 hours of onset. It compared a ten-day Hotdrink containing echinacea **and elderberry** with oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily for five days followed by placebo. Hotdrink was given at 5 mL five times daily for the first three days, then three times daily for another seven days. The analysis met the prespecified recovery noninferiority criterion. There was no placebo-only group and no way to isolate echinacea’s contribution; severe cases and high-risk groups were not the main population. The complication difference, 2.46% versus 6.45%, had P = 0.076, so it is not an established risk reduction. This result does not justify replacing treatment for severe influenza with an herbal product.

| Clinical question | What to retain when reading the study | Main limit on extrapolation |
|---|---|---|
| Cold prevention | Product, duration, episodes, and person-time | Cumulative days are not individual risk |
| Cold treatment | Treatment start, symptom scale, placebo | Different products can yield different results |
| Childhood infections | Age, formulation, adverse events | Adult data do not set a pediatric dose |
| Early influenza | Combination contents and noninferiority criterion | No isolated component or severe outcome was established |

[![The evidence path from extract composition through exposure and cell experiments to human outcomes, followed by the specific Jawad prevention trial and negative or combination trials; each transition requires separate evidence.](https://api.nutrifit.health/api/v2/public/knowledge/files/images/nutrifit-scientific-20261009-echinacea-purpurea-alkylamides-cannabinoid-cb2-macrophages-echinacea-evidence-bridge-2237532137e4.png)](https://api.nutrifit.health/api/v2/public/knowledge/files/images/nutrifit-scientific-20261009-echinacea-purpurea-alkylamides-cannabinoid-cb2-macrophages-echinacea-evidence-bridge-2237532137e4.png)

## 8. Direct antiviral effects and neighboring clinical contexts

Some laboratory experiments found viral inactivation after direct contact with certain extracts. Extract concentration, incubation time, residual solvent, and whether contact occurred before or after cell infection are essential to interpreting this result. Virucidal activity in a test tube differs from achieving the same exposure on mucosa after ordinary use and from suppressing an infection that is already established. It does not automatically require CB2 or prove prevention of clinical complications.

Signer and colleagues tested a particular preparation against coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, in vitro. This is a direct-virus experiment; it does not support conclusions about treating COVID-19, preventing severe lung injury, or preventing a “cytokine storm.” A cytokine change in a macrophage is also not a validated surrogate for these severe outcomes. Timing of intervention may alter the balance between infection defense and limiting tissue injury.

Studies of combination products for COPD also included other components, such as zinc, selenium, and vitamin C. Even a randomized result for a combination cannot be decomposed into separate effects without suitable comparison groups. Correcting a nutrient deficiency and hypothesized alkylamide immunomodulation should be considered separately; this principle is discussed further in [zinc and immune function](/knowledge/zinc-immune-function-deficiency-safe-supplementation). Micronutrient doses do not become universally beneficial because they are combined with a plant.

Alkylamides have also been studied in skin models, while synthetic CB2 ligands have been investigated in entirely different diseases. These lines of work can generate hypotheses but do not create a general therapeutic indication for echinacea. Models of atopic inflammation, beta-amyloid clearance, or tumor phagocytosis have their own compound, cellular material, and outcome. In studies of new synthetic scaffolds, changing the chain and metabolic stability creates a different molecule, not clinical confirmation of an ordinary tincture.

## 9. Safety and what dose numbers mean

Plant origin does not rule out adverse reactions. Allergy history, plant material, excipients, ethanol content, and concurrent medicines matter. A short study in healthy adults does not establish safety for years of use, pregnancy, breastfeeding, severe immunodeficiency, or immunosuppressive therapy. Likewise, an event not observed in a small trial does not prove zero risk of a rare reaction.

An allergic reaction may involve a plant or product component. Sensitivity to plants in the Asteraceae family is considered clinically, but should not be described as an inevitable reaction in every person with pollen allergy. A rapidly progressing systemic reaction must be assessed and treated according to its severity, not according to a wish to continue a preventive supplement. The rash seen in the pediatric trial is a reminder that tolerability must be measured alongside benefit rather than assumed.

Immune diseases are also heterogeneous. A cellular effect of echinacea does not justify prescribing it to “boost” immunity in every immunodeficiency or to universally suppress autoimmunity. Potential interactions with immunosuppressants and other medicines are assessed separately; a mechanistic hypothesis does not establish one obligatory clinical response. Contested use restrictions need evidence tied to a particular product, not an expanded list of contraindications inferred by analogy.

A dose in milliliters of tincture, milligrams of extract, dry-herb equivalent, and micrograms of alkylamide describes different quantities. The research regimens above are included to explain the trials, not as universal recommendations. Comparing products by mass alone without a drug-to-extract ratio and chemical profile is not valid. “Double the dose at the first symptom” schedules also cannot be transferred arbitrarily across products with different ethanol and active-constituent content.

## 10. Review methods and conclusions

This narrative review covers echinacea chemistry, receptor and cellular mechanisms, human pharmacokinetics, and selected clinical studies. On October 9, 2026, primary evidence was checked individually for Gertsch’s time-dependent TNF-α/cAMP findings, Woelkart’s human pharmacokinetic study, Jawad’s prevention trial, Taylor’s pediatric trial, the combination Hotdrink versus oseltamivir comparison, and Gorski’s CYP interaction study. For Raduner, available primary bibliographic and abstract information was used; the full text was not available through the publisher in this check. This was not an exhaustive systematic search or formal GRADE assessment.

The most consistent mechanistic conclusion is that individual alkylamides have receptor activity and can alter immune responses under specified conditions. Other constituents, availability, and receptor-independent actions matter for a preparation. CB2 binding does not automatically explain an entire extract, and a change in phagocytosis or cytokine does not prove disease prevention. Clinical findings should be read alongside negative trials, product composition, population, and measured outcome.

A useful next step would be studies using chemically reproducible preparations, confirmed exposure, and prespecified patient outcomes. Mechanistic studies need comparisons of individual compounds and mixtures, impurity and viability controls, receptor interventions, and time courses. Clinical studies need comparable populations, sufficient safety follow-up, and transparent analyses of negative results. Until then, echinacea is best described through specific experiments and their limits rather than a promise of general immune protection.

## FAQ

### Does CB2 binding prove protection against colds?

No. Binding, cellular response, exposure, and clinical outcome must be assessed separately; alkylamides also have receptor-independent actions.

### Does every echinacea product contain the same alkylamides?

No. Species, plant part, extraction, and batch change composition. Powder mass, extract mass, and the amount of an individual alkylamide are not interchangeable.

### Can cAMP be assumed to always fall after alkylamides?

No. In Gertsch’s primary experiment, cAMP increased under the tested conditions, and TNF-α changed over time. A general Gi signal does not replace observation in a specific cell.

### Are there negative clinical trials?

Yes. Turner, Barrett, and Taylor’s pediatric study did not establish the expected benefit on the main outcomes for the tested preparations. These findings belong alongside positive results.

### Does Hotdrink show echinacea can replace influenza treatment?

No. The studied combination also contained elderberry. A noninferiority comparison in early, mostly non-severe illness does not establish an individual component or treatment of severe influenza.

### Is there one universally safe dose?

No. Composition, age, duration, allergy history, ethanol, and concomitant medicines matter. A regimen from one trial is not a general prescription.

## Sources

- [Gertsch J et al. (2004). Echinacea alkylamides modulate TNF-alpha gene expression via cannabinoid receptor CB2 and multiple signal transduction pathways.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15556647/)
- [Raduner S et al. (2006). Alkylamides from Echinacea are a new class of cannabinomimetics. Cannabinoid type 2 receptor-dependent and -independent immunomodulatory effects.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16547349/)
- [Matthias A et al. (2005). Bioavailability of Echinacea constituents: Caco-2 monolayers and pharmacokinetics of the alkylamides and caffeic acid conjugates.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18007516/)
- [Mai P et al. (2015). Cannabinoid receptor 1 but not 2 mediates macrophage phagocytosis by G(α)i/o /RhoA/ROCK signaling pathway.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25545473/)
- [Tolón RM et al. (2009). The activation of cannabinoid CB2 receptors stimulates in situ and in vitro beta-amyloid removal by human macrophages.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19505450/)
- [Woelkart K et al. (2005). Bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of alkamides from the roots of Echinacea angustifolia in humans.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15901750/)
- [Goel V et al. (2002). Alkylamides of Echinacea purpurea stimulate alveolar macrophage function in normal rats.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11811940/)
- [Chicca A et al. (2009). Synergistic immunomopharmacological effects of N-alkylamides in Echinacea purpurea herbal extracts.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19303464/)
- [Woelkart K et al. (2006). Bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of Echinacea purpurea preparations and their interaction with the immune system.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16995328/)
- [Jager H et al. (2002). Transport of alkamides from Echinacea species through Caco-2 monolayers.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12058332/)
- [Signer J et al. (2020). In vitro virucidal activity of Echinaforce®, an Echinacea purpurea preparation, against coronaviruses, including common cold coronavirus 229E and SARS-CoV-2.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32907596/)
- [Isbaniah F et al. (2011). Echinacea purpurea along with zinc, selenium and vitamin C to alleviate exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a randomized controlled trial.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21062330/)
- [Matovic N et al. (2007). Stereoselective synthesis, natural occurrence and CB(2) receptor binding affinities of alkylamides from herbal medicines such as Echinacea sp.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17164922/)
- [Spelman K et al. (2009). Comparison of alkylamide yield in ethanolic extracts prepared from fresh versus dry Echinacea purpurea utilizing HPLC-ESI-MS.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19321283/)
- [Müller-Jakic B et al. (1994). In vitro inhibition of cyclooxygenase and 5-lipoxygenase by alkamides from Echinacea and Achillea species.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8134414/)
- [Goel V et al. (2005). A proprietary extract from the echinacea plant (Echinacea purpurea) enhances systemic immune response during a common cold.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177972/)
- [Hua T et al. (2020). Activation and Signaling Mechanism Revealed by Cannabinoid Receptor-G(i) Complex Structures.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32004463/)
- [Woelkart K et al. (2008). Pharmacokinetics of the main alkamides after administration of three different Echinacea purpurea preparations in humans.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18240099/)
- [Jiang L et al. (2016). Selective activation of CB2 receptor improves efferocytosis in cultured macrophages.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27474129/)
- [Spelman K et al. (2009). Role for PPARgamma in IL-2 inhibition in T cells by Echinacea-derived undeca-2E-ene-8,10-diynoic acid isobutylamide.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19712756/)
- [Jawad M et al. (2012). Safety and efficacy profile of Echinacea purpurea to prevent common cold episodes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23024696/)
- [Turner RB et al. (2005). An evaluation of Echinacea angustifolia in experimental rhinovirus infections.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16049208/)
- [Barrett B et al. (2010). Echinacea for treating the common cold: a randomized trial.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21173411/)
- [Taylor JA et al. (2003). Efficacy and safety of echinacea in treating upper respiratory tract infections in children: a randomized controlled trial.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14657066/)
- [Rauš K et al. (2015). Effect of an Echinacea-Based Hot Drink Versus Oseltamivir in Influenza Treatment: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter, Noninferiority Clinical Trial.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26265958/)
- [Gorski JC et al. (2004). The effect of echinacea (Echinacea purpurea root) on cytochrome P450 activity in vivo.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14749695/)