Ufomadu Promise, Gill Bartley Joseph, Orengo Ida, Rosen Theodore, Shimizu Ikue
Mr. Ufomadu and Drs. Gill, Orengo, Rosen, and Shmizu are with the School of Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.
Dr. Gill is also with the Department of Dermatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and Memorial Hermann Health Systems in Houston, Texas.
J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2025 Feb;18(2):E61-E79.
In recent years, there has been a widespread patient use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) for dermatological application, despite few RCT-level studies on these supplements. This creates a barrier for dermatologists and others in counseling patients who may be using or might be tempted to use these CAM agents. This review investigates various CAM modalities used by patients for medical dermatology, exploring their efficacy and toxicity profiles.
A comprehensive review was performed on the effectiveness of several CAMs utilized in medical dermatology by patients. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane.
Most CAM modalities had statistically insignificant results, and for agents that had significant results in efficacy, these studies were questionable with flawed designs and methodologies.
These CAM supplements have promising potential in dermatologic use and are deserving of further investigation in well-crafted RCT-level studies. A more practical focus in future studies should involve a comparison of CAM agents to conventional therapies either alone or in an integrative fashion. This would accurately represent how these agents will be used clinically by actual patients and will be more helpful to clinicians. In the meantime, dermatologists should be aware of bias in published studies demonstrating the effectiveness of certain CAM modalities, and their corresponding toxicity. By doing so, physicians act as a valuable resource to patients who would like to explore various CAM products, better guiding patient interactions and treatment with improved patient outcomes.
近年来,尽管针对这些补充剂的随机对照试验(RCT)水平的研究较少,但患者广泛将补充和替代医学(CAM)用于皮肤科。这给皮肤科医生及其他人员在为可能正在使用或可能想要使用这些CAM制剂的患者提供咨询时造成了障碍。本综述调查了患者用于医学皮肤科的各种CAM方式,探讨其疗效和毒性特征。
对患者在医学皮肤科使用的几种CAM的有效性进行了全面综述。使用PubMed、Embase、谷歌学术、科学网和考克兰图书馆进行文献检索。
大多数CAM方式的结果在统计学上无显著意义,而对于那些在疗效上有显著结果的制剂,这些研究因设计和方法存在缺陷而存在问题。
这些CAM补充剂在皮肤科应用方面具有潜在前景,值得在精心设计的RCT水平研究中进一步探究。未来研究更实际的重点应包括将CAM制剂单独或以综合方式与传统疗法进行比较。这将准确反映这些制剂在临床实际患者中的使用方式,对临床医生更有帮助。同时,皮肤科医生应意识到已发表研究中证明某些CAM方式有效性及其相应毒性时存在的偏差。这样做,医生就能成为希望探索各种CAM产品的患者的宝贵资源,更好地指导患者互动和治疗,改善患者预后。