Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Acupuncture and herbal formulation compared with artificial tears alone: Evaluation of dry eye symptoms and associated tests in randomised clinical trial
Authors: Tong, L. 
Htoon, H.M. 
Hou, A. 
Acharya, R.U.
Tan, J.-H..
Wei, Q.-P.
Lim, P.
Keywords: clinical trial
ocular Surface
Issue Date: 2018
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Citation: Tong, L., Htoon, H.M., Hou, A., Acharya, R.U., Tan, J.-H.., Wei, Q.-P., Lim, P. (2018). Acupuncture and herbal formulation compared with artificial tears alone: Evaluation of dry eye symptoms and associated tests in randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open Ophthalmology 3 (1) : e000150. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.
Rights: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Abstract: Objective Dry eye is a common disease with great health burden and no satisfactory treatment. Traditional Chinese medicine, an increasingly popular form of complementary medicine, has been used to treat dry eye but studies have been inconclusive. To address this issue, we conducted a randomised investigator-masked study which included the robust assessment of disease mechanisms. Methods and analysis Eligible participants (total 150) were treated with artificial tear (AT) alone, with added eight sessions of acupuncture (AC) or additional daily oral herb (HB) over a month. Results Participants treated with AC were more likely to respond symptomatically than those on AT (88% vs 72%, p=0.039) with a difference of 16% (95% CI: 0.18 to 31.1). The number-to-treat with AC to achieve response in one person was 7 (3 to 157). Participants in the AC group also had reduced conjunctival redness (automatic grading with Oculus keratograph) compared with AT (p=0.043) and reduced tear T helper cell (Th1)-cytokine tumour necrosis factor α (p=0.027) and Th2-cytokine interleukin 4 concentrations (p=0.038). AC was not significantly superior to AT in other outcomes such as tear osmolarity, tear evaporation rates, corneal staining and tear break-up times. No significant adverse effects were encountered. HB was not significantly different in the primary outcome from AT (80% vs 72%, p=0.26). Conclusions AC is safe and provides additional benefit in mild to moderate dry eye up to 1 month, compared with ATs alone. Treatment is associated with demonstrable molecular evidence of reduced inflammation. Provided that suitably qualified practitioners are available to implement standardised treatment, AC may be recommended as adjunctive therapy to AT. Trial registration number (NCT02219204)registered on 14 August 2014. © 2018 Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article). All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Source Title: BMJ Open Ophthalmology
ISSN: 23973269
DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2018-000150
Rights: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1136_bmjophth-2018-000150.pdf560.15 kBAdobe PDF



Google ScholarTM



This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons