Topcu Ayfer, Løkke Anders, Eriksen Leila, Nielsen Lars Peter, Dahl Ronald
Department of Medicine, The Regional Hospital in Horsens, Horsens, Denmark.
Department of Medicine, Little Belt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.
Eur Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 14;7(1):1793526. doi: 10.1080/20018525.2020.1793526.
Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide without any known cure. Despite remarkable improvement in asthma treatment, better education and guideline implementation strategies, there is growing interest in using complementary and alternative medicine, like reflexology and homeopathy. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of homeopathy and reflexology in asthma treatment is not available.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of reflexology and homeopathy as adjunctive therapies in asthma.
In a single centre, randomised, investigator blinded, controlled study 86 asthma patients were enrolled. They were assigned to one of three study groups (conventional treatment alone or conventional treatment with addition of either homeopathy or reflexology). All patients received their asthma treatment during the study and were followed as usual by their general practitioner. The study assignment group of individual patients were blinded to the investigators, who made the clinical evaluation of asthma control. The primary outcome was the change in the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) scores after 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes included asthma control questionnaire, EuroQol, forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and total medication score.
Minor improvements in the AQLQ score were observed in all three groups. However, no statistically significant changes in AQLQ scores were seen within or between groups. Likewise, secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.
In this study, the addition of homeopathy or reflexology to conventional treatment did not result in improved quality of life in asthma.
哮喘是一种全球常见的慢性疾病，尚无已知的治愈方法。尽管哮喘治疗、教育及指南实施策略有显著改善，但人们对使用补充和替代医学（如反射疗法和顺势疗法）的兴趣与日俱增。然而，尚无证据支持顺势疗法和反射疗法对哮喘治疗有效。
本研究旨在评估反射疗法和顺势疗法作为哮喘辅助治疗的效果。
在一项单中心、随机、研究者盲法、对照研究中，纳入了86例哮喘患者。他们被分配到三个研究组之一（仅接受常规治疗或在常规治疗基础上加用顺势疗法或反射疗法）。所有患者在研究期间均接受哮喘治疗，并由其全科医生按常规进行随访。患者的研究分组对进行哮喘控制临床评估的研究者保密。主要结局是26周后哮喘生活质量问卷（AQLQ）评分的变化。次要结局包括哮喘控制问卷、欧洲五维度健康量表、一秒用力呼气量、早晚呼气峰值流速、哮喘症状、急救药物使用及总药物评分。
三组患者的AQLQ评分均有轻微改善。然而，组内和组间的AQLQ评分均未出现统计学上的显著变化。同样，次要结局在各组之间也没有差异。
在本研究中，在常规治疗基础上加用顺势疗法或反射疗法并未改善哮喘患者的生活质量。
