Passalacqua G, Compalati E, Schiappoli M, Senna G
Allergy & Respiratory Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Italy.
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2005 Mar;63(1):47-54. doi: 10.4081/monaldi.2005.657.
The use of Complementary/Alternative Medicines (CAM) is largely diffused and constantly increasing, especially in the field of allergic diseases and asthma. Homeopathy, acupuncture and phytotherapy are the most frequently utilised treatments, whereas complementary diagnostic techniques are mainly used in the field of food allergy-intolerance. Looking at the literature, the majority of clinical trials with CAMS are of low methodological quality, thus difficult to interpret. There are very few studies performed in a rigorously controlled fashion, and those studies provided inconclusive results. In asthma, none of the CAM have thus far been proved more effective than placebo or equally effective as standard treatments. Some herbal products, containing active principles, have displayed some clinical effect, but the herbal remedies are usually not standardised and not quantified, thus carry the risk of toxic effects or interactions. None of the alternative diagnostic techniques (electrodermal testing, kinesiology, leukocytotoxic test, iridology, hair analysis) have been proved able to distinguish between healthy and allergic subjects or to diagnose sensitizations. Therefore these tests must not be used, since they can lead to delayed or incorrect diagnosis and therapy.
补充/替代医学(CAM)的使用广泛且持续增加,尤其是在过敏性疾病和哮喘领域。顺势疗法、针灸和植物疗法是最常用的治疗方法,而补充诊断技术主要用于食物过敏不耐受领域。从文献来看,大多数关于补充/替代医学的临床试验方法学质量较低,因此难以解读。严格对照进行的研究非常少,且这些研究结果尚无定论。在哮喘方面,迄今为止,没有一种补充/替代医学被证明比安慰剂更有效或与标准治疗同样有效。一些含有活性成分的草药产品显示出了一定的临床效果,但草药疗法通常未标准化且未定量,因此存在毒性作用或相互作用的风险。没有一种替代诊断技术(皮肤电测试、运动机能学、白细胞毒性试验、虹膜学、毛发分析)被证明能够区分健康人和过敏者或诊断致敏情况。因此,这些测试不能使用,因为它们可能导致诊断和治疗延迟或错误。