Introduction. Although combination therapy with herbal medicine and probiotics is gaining popularity for controlling diarrhea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome (D-IBS) symptoms, few studies have investigated its clinical effects.Materials and Methods. Fifty-three patients with D-IBS were randomly allocated into 1 of the following 4 groups: herbal medicine (Gwakhyangjeonggisan; GJS) plus probiotics (Duolac7S; DUO), GJS plus placebo DUO, placebo GJS plus DUO, and placebo GJS plus placebo DUO. The study period consisted of a 2-week run-in, 8 weeks of administration, and 2 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcomes were weekly adequate relief (AR) of overall IBS symptoms and the proportion of responders (PR) during the administration period. The secondary outcomes included individual IBS symptoms, stool assessment, and quality of life. Changes of intestinal microbiota and intestinal permeability were also analyzed.Results and Discussion. Weekly AR was not different among the 4 groups throughout the treatment period. However, the 3 treatment groups exhibited significant improvements in PR compared to the findings in the placebo group. In the intestinal microbiota assessment, herbal medicine and probiotics synergistically increased beneficial bacteria counts.Conclusion. Combination therapy with herbal medicine and probiotics appears to relieve overall IBS symptoms by synergistically increasing beneficial intestinal microbe counts.

Objectives: This study was implemented to evaluate the effect of individualized acupuncture treatment (AT) on functional dyspepsia (FD). Methods: A randomized, waitlist-controlled, two-center trial was performed. Seventy-six patients with FD were enrolled in the trial with partially individualized AT in a more realistic clinical setting performed twice a week for 15 minutes a session over 4 weeks. The participants were randomly allocated to a group receiving 8 sessions of AT for 4 weeks or a waitlist control group. After 4 consecutive weeks, the AT group was followed up without AT and the control group received the identical AT. The proportion of responders with adequate symptom relief, Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI), FD-related quality of life, Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Acupuncture Belief Scale, and acupuncture credibility test were assessed. Results: After the first 4 weeks, the proportion of responders significantly improved (59% in AT group [n = 37] versus 3% in control group [n = 39]; p < 0.001). The difference was no longer significant at 8 weeks, at which point the waitlist control group showed similar improvement after receiving AT (68% in the AT group versus 79% in the control group). Total NDI scores were significantly reduced in the AT group compared with the waitlist group (p = 0.03). Among NDI items, discomfort (p = 0.01), burning (p = 0.02), fullness after eating (p = 0.02), and burping (p = 0.02) were significantly improved in the AT group compared with the control group. No significant differences were observed between groups in other secondary variables. Conclusion: Individualized AT adequately relieves symptoms in patients with FD, and this effect may persist up to 8 weeks.

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder. Many patients suffer from IBS that can be difficult to treat, thus complementary therapies which may be effective and have a lower likelihood of adverse effects are being sought. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at critically evaluating the current evidence on moxibustion for improving global symptoms of IBS. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, CINAHL, and CNKI databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of moxibustion comparing with sham moxibustion, pharmacological medications, and other active treatments in patients with IBS. Trials should report global symptom improvement as an outcome measure. Risk of bias for each RCT was assessed according to criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration, and the dichotomous data were pooled according to the control intervention to obtain a risk ratio (RR) of global symptom improvement after moxibustion, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 20 RCTs were eligible for inclusion (n = 1625). The risk of bias was generally high. Compared with pharmacological medications, moxibustion significantly alleviated overall IBS symptoms but there was a moderate inconsistency among studies (7 RCTs, RR 1.33, 95% CI [1.15, 1.55], I² = 46%). Moxibustion combined with acupuncture was more effective than pharmacological therapy but a moderate inconsistency among studies was found (4 RCTs, RR 1.24, 95% CI [1.09, 1.41], I² = 36%). When moxibustion was added to pharmacological medications or herbal medicine, no additive benefit of moxibustion was shown compared with pharmacological medications or herbal medicine alone. One small sham-controlled trial found no difference between moxibustion and sham control in symptom severity (mean difference 0.35, 95% CI [−0.77, 1.47]). Moxibustion appears to be associated with few adverse events but the evidence is limited due to poor reporting. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that moxibustion may provide benefit to IBS patients although the risk of bias in the included studies is relatively high. Future studies are necessary to confirm whether this finding is reproducible in carefully-designed and conducted trials and to firmly establish the place of moxibustion in current practice.