Cai Xiaoce, Sun Xiaoying, Liu Liu, Zhou Yaqiong, Hong Seokgyeong, Wang Jiao, Chen Jiale, Zhang Miao, Wang Chunxiao, Lin Naixuan, Li Su, Xu Rong, Li Xin
Department of Dermatology, Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Institute of Dermatology, Shanghai Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Front Pharmacol. 2022 Sep 27;13:927304. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.927304. eCollection 2022.
The use of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) has gained attention. This quantitative study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of CHM for the treatment of AD in eight high-level clinical trials, resulting in a high level of clinical evidence. Several databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chongqing VIP Chinese Science (VIP), and Wanfang Database. High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM with placebo were included. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the risk ratio (RR) was calculated using software (RevMan 5.3) and a meta-analysis was performed. Evidence level evaluation using GRADE Profiler 3.6. In total, 662 patients (322 in the experimental group and 340 in the control group) were included. The response rate of the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) -90 was higher in the CHM group than in the placebo group (RR, 3.72; 95% CI, 1.76 to7.83; = 0.01). Furthermore, the scoring of atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) (RR, -10.20), body surface area (BSA) (RR, -2.01), surface damage score (RR, -2.25), visual analog scale (VAS) (RR, -1.90), and sleep score (RR, -2.16), improvement of investigator's global assessment (IGA) (RR, 2.94) improved in the CHM group. The results showed no statistical difference between CHM and placebo (MD, -0.47; 95% CI, -1.30, 0.37; = 0.27) in improving the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or children's DLQI (CDLQI). There was also no significant difference in the IgE level between the two groups (MD, -62.76; 95% CI, -809.58, 684.05; = 0.87). However, the adverse events (AEs) rate was slightly higher in patients treated with CHM than in those treated with placebo (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.90; = 0.02). CHM improved the size and severity of the skin lesions and sleep quality in patients with AD. Comparing the adverse effects between the two groups, CHM is safe. However, CHM does not improve the quality of life or the patient's IgE levels.
使用中草药治疗特应性皮炎已受到关注。这项定量研究在八项高水平临床试验中系统评估了中草药治疗特应性皮炎的疗效和安全性,得出了较高水平的临床证据。检索了多个数据库,包括PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science、中国知网(CNKI)、重庆维普中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)和万方数据库。纳入了比较中草药与安慰剂的高质量随机对照试验(RCT)。使用软件(RevMan 5.3)计算风险比(RR)的95%置信区间(CI)并进行荟萃分析。使用GRADE Profiler 3.6进行证据水平评估。总共纳入了662例患者(实验组322例,对照组340例)。中草药组湿疹面积和严重程度指数(EASI)-90的缓解率高于安慰剂组(RR,3.72;95%CI,1.76至7.83;P = 0.01)。此外,中草药组特应性皮炎评分(SCORAD)(RR,-10.20)、体表面积(BSA)(RR,-2.01)、皮肤损伤评分(RR,-2.25)、视觉模拟量表(VAS)(RR,-1.90)和睡眠评分(RR,-2.16)以及研究者整体评估(IGA)改善情况(RR,2.94)均有所改善。结果显示,在改善皮肤病生活质量指数(DLQI)或儿童DLQI(CDLQI)方面,中草药与安慰剂之间无统计学差异(MD,-0.47;95%CI,-1.30,0.37;P = 0.27)。两组之间的IgE水平也无显著差异(MD,-62.76;95%CI,-809.58,684.05;P = 0.87)。然而,接受中草药治疗的患者不良事件(AE)发生率略高于接受安慰剂治疗的患者(RR,1.42;95%CI,1.06 - 1.90;P = 0.02)。中草药改善了特应性皮炎患者的皮肤病变大小和严重程度以及睡眠质量。比较两组的不良反应,中草药是安全的。然而,中草药并不能改善生活质量或患者的IgE水平。