Integrated Chinese and western medicine interventions for atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing skin disease characterized by recurring episodes of itchiness with skin erythema and surface damages. Chinese medicine (CM) is widely used for the management of AD in China not only by its own, but also used in combination with conventional therapy (integrated Chinese-Western medicine, ICWM). Although many clinical trials on the effectiveness of ICWM on AD have been conducted, however, up to date, no sound evidence has been established on the clinical effectiveness and safety of ICWM for AD. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the currently available clinical evidence on the clinical effectiveness and safety of ICWM for AD. METHODS: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, which investigated ICWM interventions with at least one control group using the same conventional interventions, no treatment or placebo treatment, were included. Four English (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED) and three Chinese (CNKI, CBM, WanFang Med) databases were searched. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed to pool the data. RESULTS: From 1473 entries, 55 studies were included, involving 5953 participants aged between 35 days and 67 years old. Duration of treatment ranged from 1 to 24 weeks. Only 2 studies were judged to have low risk of bias, 3 studies had unclear risk of bias, and the other 50 studies were with high risk of bias. ICWM was found to be superior over WM alone in improving clinical severity of AD (measured by EASI, SCORAD), health-related quality of life (measured by CDLQI, DLQI), long term control of AD (recurrence rate), patients/investigator global score (clinical effectiveness rate), and serum IgE level. Adverse events associated with ICWM were found to be comparable with WM alone. CONCLUSION: ICWM seems to produce superior treatment response than WM alone in managing AD without increased risk of adverse events. However, the current available evidence remains too weak to make a conclusive decision.