Homoeopathic remedies in dermatology: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials

Homeopathic Medicines in the Management of Dermatophytosis (Tinea Infections): A Clinico-epidemiological Study with Pre-post Comparison Design

BACKGROUND

 Dermatophytosis is a common fungal infection of the skin and nails. Insufficient data exist regarding the clinico-epidemiological profile of dermatophytosis and the usefulness of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) for patients visiting a homeopathy outpatient department (OPD).

OBJECTIVES

 This article undertakes a clinico-epidemiological profiling of dermatophytosis and the usefulness of IHMs in its management.

METHODS

 This open-label, pre-post, comparative observational study was conducted in a homeopathy OPD from November 2018 to February 2020. IHMs were prescribed based on symptom totality and repertorization. A numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) patient questionnaires were used, and results were analyzed using SPSS-IBM version 20.

RESULTS

 Data from a total of 103 patients, mean age 29.65 ± 15.40 years, were analyzed. Tinea cruris was the most common infection (29.1%), followed by tinea corporis (13.6%). After 3 months of treatment, significant reductions in NRS and DLQI scores were observed (8.51 ± 1.24 to 0.59 ± 0.83, p < 0.001, and 16.28 ± 5.30 to 1.44 ± 1.56, p < 0.001, respectively), with Sepia (15.5%), Sulphur (14.6%), Calcarea carbonica (11.7%), Natrum muriaticum (9.7%) and Bacillinum (8.7%) being the most frequently prescribed medicines. There was no significant correlation between occupation, sex, home location or marital status and the clinical types of dermatophytosis. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

 T. cruris and T. corporis were prevalent dermatophytic infections. The decrease in NRS and DLQI scores associated with homeopathy indicates its usefulness as an integrative treatment option for dermatophytosis. Further research in larger and more diverse population samples is needed.

[Recommendations of the committee on complementary medicine and nutrition in ayurvedic medicine, homeopathy, nutrition and Mediterranean diet]

Methods of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are appealing for many patients with rheumatic diseases. The scientific data are currently characterized by a large number of publications that stand in contrast to a remarkable shortage of valid clinical studies. The applications of CAM procedures are situated in an area of conflict between efforts for an evidence-based medicine and high-quality therapeutic concepts on the one hand and ill-founded or even dubious offers on the other hand. In 2021 the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) launched a committee for CAM and nutrition, which aims to collect and to evaluate the current evidence for CAM applications and nutritional medical interventions in rheumatology, in order to elaborate recommendations for the clinical practice. The current article presents recommendations for nutritional interventions in the rheumatological routine for four areas: nutrition, Mediterranean diet, ayurvedic medicine and homeopathy.

Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review

Background

Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is of critical importance in dermatology because of their key role in informing health care decisions.

Objective

To assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines.

Methods

This review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Included studies were reviews published across 6 years in the top 4 highest-impact-factor dermatology journals of 2017. Records and full texts were screened independently. Data analysis was conducted with univariate multivariable linear regression. The primary outcome was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement.

Results

A total of 166 studies were included and mean PRISMA compliance across all articles was 73%. Compliance significantly improved over time (β = .016; P = <.001). The worst reported checklist item was item 5 (reporting on protocol existence), with a compliance of 15% of articles.

Conclusion

PRISMA compliance within leading dermatology journals could be improved; however, it is steadily improving.

Comprehensive Approach: Current Status on Patient Education in Atopic Dermatitis and Other Allergic Diseases

Allergic diseases are characterized by a complex complex chronic pathophysiology. Therapeutic patient education (TPE) programs are an important part of health care for allergic patients. These programs aim to increase the patient's adherence to evidence-based treatment and improve their ability to cope with the disease. TPE led by a multiprofessional team covers the complex pathogenesis of the disease, trigger factors, nursing and dietary issues, and the broad variety of treatment options available including psychological and behavioral aspects.Regarding atopic dermatitis (AD), randomized, controlled studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of delivering structured group training to children, their caregivers, and adult patients with AD. Such intervention achieved substantial improvements in quality of life and objective clinical disease parameters. Besides AD, training programs have also been developed and evaluated for patients with anaphylaxis and asthma. This article provides an overview of the multitude of TPE concepts and their impact on subjective and objective outcomes. It focuses on AD but also sheds light on other allergic diseases such as anaphylaxis and asthma.

Dietary Supplements in Children

High-quality systematic reviews of use of herbal or homeopathic remedies in children often suffer from design flaws, such as not following PRISMA guidelines, inconsistent outcome measurements, and paucity of high-quality studies. Herbal remedies have modest demonstrated benefits with insufficient evidence to recommend any particular supplement. Homeopathic remedies have no role in treatment of pediatric conditions, and have been associated with great harm in infants given homeopathic teething products. Two types of herbal supplements are associated with high risk in adolescents, energy drinks and adulterated weight-loss products. Parents should be counseled about risks of these products.

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Background

Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG).

Objective

To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases.

Design

Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, two pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three feasibility studies, two core outcome initiatives, four funding proposals for national RCTs and one completed national RCT.

Setting

Secondary care, primary care and the general population.

Participants

Patients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease.

Interventions

Our three intervention studies included (1) barrier enhancement using emollients from birth to prevent eczema (pilot RCT); (2) handheld narrowband ultraviolet light B therapy for treating vitiligo (pilot RCT); and (3) oral ciclosporin (Neoral®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) compared with oral prednisolone for managing PG (pragmatic national RCT).

Results

Systematic reviews included two overarching systematic reviews of RCTs of treatments for eczema and vitiligo, an umbrella review of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of eczema, two reviews of treatments for SCC (one included RCTs and the second included observational studies), and three reviews of outcome measures and outcome reporting. Three prioritisation partnership exercises identified 26 priority areas for future research in eczema, vitiligo and SCC. Two international consensus initiatives identified four core domains for future eczema trials and seven core domains for vitiligo trials. Two pilot RCTs and three feasibility studies critically informed development of four trial proposals for external funding, three of which are now funded and one is pending consideration by funders. Our pragmatic RCT tested the two commonly used systemic treatments for PG (prednisolone vs. ciclosporin) and found no difference in their clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Both drugs showed limited benefit. Only half of the participants’ ulcers had healed by 6 months. For those with healed ulcers, recurrence was common (30%). Different side effect profiles were noted for each drug, which can inform clinical decisions on an individual patient basis. Three researchers were trained to PhD level and a dermatology patient panel was established to ensure patient involvement in all aspects of the programme.

Conclusions

Findings from this programme of work have already informed clinical guidelines and patient information resources. Feasibility studies have ensured that large national pragmatic trials will now be conducted on important areas of treatment uncertainty that address the needs of patients and the NHS. There is scope for considerable improvement in terms of trial design, conduct and reporting for RCTs of skin disease, which can be improved through wider collaboration, registration of trial protocols and complete reporting and international consensus over core outcome sets. Three national trials have now been funded as a result of this work. Two international initiatives to establish how best to measure the core outcome domains for eczema and vitiligo are ongoing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) (ISRCTN84854178 and NCT01142999), Study of Treatments fOr Pyoderma GAngrenosum Patients (STOP GAP) (ISRCTN35898459) and Hand Held NB-UVB for Early or Focal Vitiligo at Home (HI-Light Pilot Trial) (NCT01478945).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background

Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

Objectives

To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Review methods

Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.

Results

Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.

Limitations

The large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.

Conclusions

Although the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (also known as atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that is characterised by intense itching and recurrent eczematous lesions. Although it most often starts in infancy and affects two of ten children, it is also highly prevalent in adults. It is the leading non-fatal health burden attributable to skin diseases, inflicts a substantial psychosocial burden on patients and their relatives, and increases the risk of food allergy, asthma, allergic rhinitis, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and mental health disorders. Originally regarded as a childhood disorder mediated by an imbalance towards a T-helper-2 response and exaggerated IgE responses to allergens, it is now recognised as a lifelong disposition with variable clinical manifestations and expressivity, in which defects of the epidermal barrier are central. Present prevention and treatment focus on restoration of epidermal barrier function, which is best achieved through the use of emollients. Topical corticosteroids are still the first-line therapy for acute flares, but they are also used proactively along with topical calcineurin inhibitors to maintain remission. Non-specific immunosuppressive drugs are used in severe refractory cases, but targeted disease-modifying drugs are being developed. We need to improve understanding of the heterogeneity of the disease and its subtypes, the role of atopy and autoimmunity, the mechanisms behind disease-associated itch, and the comparative effectiveness and safety of therapies.

Validation of the global resource of eczema trials (GREAT database)

Background

Eczema (syn. Atopic Eczema or Atopic Dermatitis) is a chronic, relapsing, itchy skin condition which probably results from a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) is a collection of records of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eczema treatment produced from a highly sensitive search of six reference databases. We sought to assess the sensitivity of the GREAT database as a tool to save future researchers repeating extensive bibliographic searches.

Methods

All Cochrane systematic review on treatments for eczema and five non-Cochrane systematic reviews on eczema were identified as a reference set to assess the utility of the GREAT database in identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs included in the systematic reviews were checked for inclusion in the GREAT database by two independent authors. A third author resolved any disagreements.

Results

Five Cochrane and six non-Cochrane systematic reviews containing a total of 105 RCTs of eczema treatments were included. Of these, 95 fitted the inclusion criteria for the GREAT database and 88 were published from 2000 onwards. Of the 88 eligible studies, 92% were found in the GREAT database. Seven trials were not included in the GREAT database - two of these were reported within a review paper and one as an abstract with no trial results.

Conclusions

The sensitivity of the GREAT database for trials from 2000 onwards was high (75/88 trials, 94%). Sensitivity for the period prior to 2000 was less sensitive, due to differences in how the trials were identified prior to this time.

‘Dual’ filtering for new records has recently become part of the GREAT database methodology and should further improve the sensitivity of the database in time. The GREAT database can be considered as a primary source for future systematic reviews including randomised controlled trials of eczema treatments, but searches should be supplemented by checking reference lists for eligible trials, searching trial registries and contacting pharmaceutical companies for unpublished studies.

Newer approaches to the treatment of acne vulgaris

The multifactorial etiology of acne vulgaris makes it challenging to treat. Current treatments include topical retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, topical and systemic antibiotics, azelaic acid, and systemic isotretinoin. Adjunctive and/or emerging approaches include topical dapsone, taurine bromamine, resveratrol, chemical peels, optical treatments, as well as complementary and alternative medications. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the therapies available for acne and their latest developments, including new treatment strategies (i.e. re-evaluation of the use of oral antibiotics and avoidance of topical antibiotic monotherapy, use of subantimicrobial antibiotic dosing, use of low-dose isotretinoin, optical treatments), new formulations (microsponges, liposomes, nanoemulsions, aerosol foams), new combinations (fixed-combination products of topical retinoids and topical antibiotics [essentially clindamycin] or benzoyl peroxide), new agents (topical dapsone, taurine bromamine, resveratrol) and their rationale and likely place in treatment. Acne vaccines, topical natural antimicrobial peptides, and lauric acid represent other promising therapies.