[Adverse events/adverse reactions of acupoint catgut embedding therapy for psoriasis vulgaris: a systematic review].

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.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.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.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。.