Objective: To systematically review the occurrence of adverse events/adverse reactions (AEs/ARs) induced by acupoint catgut embedding therapy for psoriasis vulgaris (PV) and its safety.
Methods: Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, case-series, and case reports concerning the treatment of PV with acupoint catgut embedding therapy were searched from Chinese and English databases from their inception to January 7th, 2021. The AEs/ARs related to acupoint catgut embedding therapy for PV were subjected to descriptive statistics, followed by the analysis of possible reasons.
Results: Finally, 16 studies were included, involving 1 158 patients. A total of 79 cases were reported to present with mild to moderate AEs/ARs related to acupoint catgut embedding therapy for PV, and there were no serious AEs/ARs or death cases. The most common AEs/ARs were local redness, swelling, heat, and pain (31.65%,25/79), followed by low-grade fever and fatigue (29.11%,23/79), isomorphic reaction (16.46%,13/79), local induration (13.92%,11/79), and fainting (8.86%,7/79). In terms of embedding materials, catgut (93.67%,74/79) and lumbar puncture needles or other puncture needles (49.37%,39/79) were proved the most common AEs/ARs-inducing factors. The proportion of AEs/ARs resulting from treatment interval≤two weeks (67.09%,53/79) and treatment course≤eight weeks (55.70%,44/79) was relatively high. Because the incidence of AEs/ARs fails to be calcula-ted, it is not yet possible to accurately assess the risk and safety of acupoint catgut embedding therapy for PV.
Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that in the treatment of PV, acupoint catgut embedding therapy may induce a series of mild to moderate AEs/ARs, so its clinical practice deserves attention. We should strictly grasp its indications and contraindications, and prevent the occurrence of related AEs/ARs by standardizing the operation and improving the embedding materials.
目的：系统评价穴位埋线治疗寻常型银屑病(PV)不良事件/不良反应(AEs/ARs)的发生情况，评价其安全性。方法：计算机检索各大中英文数据库中穴位埋线治疗PV的随机对照试验、有对照的临床试验、队列研究、病例对照研究、病例系列和病例报告，检索时限为各数据库建库至2021年1月7日；对穴位埋线治疗PV相关的AEs/ARs进行描述性统计，并分析其发生的可能原因。结果：最终纳入16篇文献，涉及1 158例患者，共报道79例与穴位埋线治疗PV有关的AEs/ARs，程度均为轻中度，无严重AEs/ARs及死亡病例报道。最常见的AEs/ARs类型为局部红肿热痛(31.65%，25/79)和低热、乏力(29.11%，23/79)，其次为同形反应(16.46%，13/79)、局部硬结(13.92%，11/79)和晕针(8.86%，7/79)。穴位埋线治疗PV的AEs/ARs中，埋线材质以使用羊肠线(93.67%，74/79)占比最高，针具以腰穿针或其他穿刺针(49.37%，39/79)占比最高，治疗间隔≤2周(67.09%，53/79)及疗程≤8周(55.70%，44/79)占比最高。因无法计算AEs/ARs发生率，故尚不能精确评估穴位埋线治疗PV的风险度和安全性。结论：现有证据表明穴位埋线治疗PV可产生一系列轻中度AEs/ARs，临床应用应引起重视，注意严格掌握适应证、禁忌证，并通过规范操作、改良埋线材质等预防相关AEs/ARs的发生。.
Keywords: Acupoint catgut embedding; Adverse events/adverse reactions; Psoriasis vulgaris (PV); Systematic review.