Efficacy and Safety of Fire Needle Therapy for Nodular Prurigo: A Quantitative Study

Abstract

In this quantitative study, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of fire needle therapy for nodular prurigo. We systematically searched several databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Web of Science, the China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and the China Science and Technology Journal Database, and retrieved randomized controlled trials comparing conventional therapies (control group) with fire needle therapy alone or in combination with conventional therapies. Revman 5.2 software was used to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). In total, 14 trials with 1176 participants were included. Our quantitative study showed that the effectiveness rate of fire needle therapy combined with conventional therapies was significantly higher than that of conventional therapies alone (fire needle + traditional Chinese medicine [TCM] vs. TCM: RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.18; fire needle + oral thalidomide + topical glucocorticoid [TGC] vs. thalidomide + TGC: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.70; fire needle + TGC vs. TGC only: RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.31). Similar results were obtained for the Symptom Score Reducing Index (fire needle + TCM vs. TCM: mean difference [MD], −3.39; 95% CI: −5.39 to −1.39), visual analog scale scores for itching severity (fire needle vs. halometasone cream: MD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.29 to −0.58; fire needle + TCM vs. TCM: MD, −1.18; 95% CI, −1.78 to −0.58), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (fire needle vs. halometasone cream: MD, −3.03; 95% CI, −3.43 to −2.63; fire needle + TCM vs. TCM: MD, −2.53; 95% CI, −3.12 to −1.94). Adverse event and recurrence rates were comparable between groups. Thus, fire needle therapy alone or combined with conventional treatments may be effective for nodular prurigo, without any additional side effects.