Laser Acupuncture Studies Should Not Be Included in Systematic Reviews of Phototherapy

The Clinical Effects of Laser Acupuncture on Hospitalized Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was extended to the entire population in China and around the world, and its mortality rate was about 3.4%. The impact of laser therapy on chronic respiratory diseases has been shown in previous studies. This study was aimed at examining the effects of laser acupuncture (LA) on patients with severe COVID-19. Methods: In the present study, 60 patients with a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test were assigned to the intervention and control groups (30 patients in each group). The intervention group was treated with LA, that is, laser light with low energy on acupuncture points, once a day for five consecutive days. Results: The participants' mean age in the intervention and control groups was 48.96±12.65 and 53.16±12.28 respectively; 70% of the patients were male and 30% of them were female. IL6 had a significant reduction in the intervention group (P value=0.038) in comparison with the control group (P value=0.535). Furthermore, the mean admission time in the control group was significantly higher than that in the intervention group (P value=0.047). However, the mortality rate in the intervention group was zero, but three patients in the control group died. Conclusion: Our study showed that LA can be used as supportive therapy for routine treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. Moreover, due to LA safety and it's low cost, it could be recommended as an adjuvant to conventional therapy in patients interested in treating their disease with such a method.

Effects of different wavelengths of invasive laser acupuncture on chronic non-specific low back pain: a study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder for which patients seek complementary and alternative medical treatments, including laser acupuncture (LA). Invasive LA (ILA) involves the simultaneous application of invasive acupuncture treatment at acupoints and focused laser irradiation. The efficacy of ILA for CLBP remains controversial owing to the insufficient clinical trial data. We intend to obtain basic data regarding the efficacy and safety of ILA for CLBP by comparing the effects of different wavelengths of ILA on CLBP.

METHODS

This will be a prospective, patient-blinded, parallel-arm, single-center (DongShin University Gwangju Korean Medicine Hospital, Republic of Korea), pilot randomized controlled clinical trial. Forty-five participants with CLBP will be randomized in equal numbers into the control, 650-nm ILA (650 ILA), or 830-nm ILA (830 ILA) group. The control group will receive sham ILA for 10 min and real electroacupuncture (EA) for 10 min. The 650 and 830 ILA groups will receive real ILA (i.e., 650 ILA group, 650-nm wavelength; 830 ILA group, 830-nm wavelength) for 10 min and real EA for 10 min once/day, twice a week for 4 weeks, at bilateral Shenshu (BL23), Qihaishu (BL24), Dachangshu (BL25), and Huantiao (GB30). The primary outcome will be an improvement in pain intensity assessed using the visual analog scale. Scores in the Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index and the European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level scale will be recorded as secondary outcome measures. All scores will be recorded at baseline (before intervention), 4 weeks after the first intervention (at the end of the intervention), and 4 weeks after completion of the intervention.

DISCUSSION

The study is expected to provide preliminary evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and usefulness of ILA for the treatment of CLBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration No. KCT0004610 ; http://cris.nih.go.kr ). Registered on 7 January 2020.

Low-dose laser acupuncture for non-specific chronic low back pain: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Objective

To determine if infrared laser acupuncture (LA) may have a specific effect in reducing pain and disability in treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP).

Methods

This was a double-blind sham laser controlled trial performed in general practices in Perth, Western Australia. The participants were 144 adults with chronic non-specific LBP. They were randomised to receive eight once-weekly treatments. Laser machines (20 mW, 840 nm diode, power density 0.1 W/cm²) stimulated points in three treatment groups: sham (0 joules/point), low dose (0.2 J/point) and high dose (0.8 joules/point). Participants were followed-up at 1 and 6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months post treatment. Primary outcomes were pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)) and disability (Oswestry Disability Inventory (ODI)) at 6 weeks post treatment. Secondary outcomes included numerical rating scale for limitation of activity, global assessment of improvement, analgesic usage and adverse effects after treatment.

Results

The analysis showed no difference between sham and the laser groups at 6 weeks for pain or disability. There was a significant reduction in mean pain and disability in all groups at 6 weeks (p<0.005); NPRS: sham (−1.5 (95% CI −2.1 to −0.8)), low dose (−1.3 (−2.0 to −0.8)), high dose (−1.1 (−1.7 to −0.5)). ODI: sham (−4.0 (−7.1 to −1.0)), low dose (−4.1, (−6.7 to −1.5)), high dose (−2.6 (−5.7 to 0.5)). All secondary outcomes also showed clinical improvement over time but with no differences between groups.

Conclusions

LA using energy density range (0–4 J/cm²) for the treatment of chronic non-specific LBP resulted in clinical improvement unrelated to laser stimulation.

Trial registration

http://www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12610000043033.

Dose response effects of 810 nm laser light on mouse primary cortical neurons

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In the past four decades numerous studies have reported the efficacy of low level light (laser) therapy (LLLT) as a treatment for diverse diseases and injuries. Recent studies have shown that LLLT can biomodulate processes in the central nervous system and has been extensively studied as a stroke treatment. However there is still a lack of knowledge on the effects of LLLT at the cellular level in neurons. The present study aimed to study the effect of 810 nm laser on several cellular processes in primary cortical neurons cultured from embryonic mouse brains.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS

Neurons were irradiated with fluences of 0.03, 0.3, 3, 10, or 30 J/cm(2) of 810-nm laser delivered over varying times at 25 mW/cm(2) and intracellular levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), nitric oxide and calcium were measured using fluorescent probes within 5 minutes of the end of irradiation. The changes in mitochondrial function in response to light were studied in terms of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP).

RESULTS

Light induced a significant increase in calcium, ATP and MMP at lower fluences and a decrease at higher fluences. ROS was significantly induced at low fluences, followed by a decrease and a second larger increase at 30 J/cm(2). Nitric oxide levels showed a similar pattern of a double peak but values were less significant compared to ROS.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that LLLT at lower fluences is capable of inducing mediators of cell signaling processes which in turn may be responsible for the beneficial stimulatory effects of the low level laser. At higher fluences beneficial mediators are reduced and high levels of Janus-type mediators such as ROS and NO (beneficial at low concentrations and harmful at high concentrations) may be responsible for the damaging effects of high-fluence light and the overall biphasic dose response.

Laser acupuncture for acute inflammatory, visceral and neuropathic pain relief: An experimental study in the laboratory rat

Laser acupuncture is defined as the stimulation of traditional acupuncture points with low-intensity, non-thermal laser irradiation. We explored the clinical efficacy of a very low level diode laser wavelength 670 nm (Biolite LP020, RGM, Genoa, Italy), used to stimulate acupoints ST36 Zu San Li and TH5 Waiguan, on well-established experimental models of acute and persistent pain in the rat, e.g. acute inflammatory pain, muscle pain, visceral pain and neuropathic pain. We report the anti-edema and anti-hyperalgesia effects of laser acupuncture in models of acute inflammatory pain, e.g. CFA-induced inflammation and myofascial pain. We also indicate that spontaneous pain and thermal hyperalgesia are reduced in a neuropathic pain model, e.g. axotomy. On the contrary, no effects due to laser-acupuncture were observed on discomfort indices in a model of visceral pain, e.g. cystitis due to cyclophosphamide. We thus provide evidences that acupoints stimulation using a very low intensity laser irradiation can control pain and edema in specific experimental conditions.

Low level laser therapy for nonspecific low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Low-back pain (LBP) is a major health problem and a major cause of medical expenses and disablement. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) can be used to treat musculoskeletal disorders such as back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of LLLT in patients with non-specific LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 2), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED and PEDro from their start to November 2007 with no language restrictions. We screened references in the included studies and in reviews and conducted citation tracking of identified RCTs and reviews using Science Citation Index. We also contacted content experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating LLLT to treat non-specific low-back pain were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group and extracted data. Studies were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed according to Cochrane Back Review Group guideline.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven heterogeneous English language RCTs with reasonable quality were included. Three small studies (168 people) separately showed statistically significant but clinically unimportant pain relief for LLLT versus sham therapy for sub-acute and chronic low-back pain at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up (up to six months). One study (56 people) showed that LLLT was more effective than sham at reducing disability in the short term. Three studies (102 people) reported that LLLT plus exercise were not better than exercise, with or without sham in the short-term in reducing pain or disability. Two studies (90 people) reported that LLLT was not more effective than exercise, with or without sham in reducing pain or disability in the short term. Two small trials (151 people) independently found that the relapse rate in the LLLT group was significantly lower than in the control group at the six-month follow-up. No side effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions on the clinical effect of LLLT for low-back pain. There is a need for further methodologically rigorous RCTs to evaluate the effects of LLLT compared to other treatments, different lengths of treatment, wavelengths and dosages.

WITHDRAWN: Low level laser therapy for nonspecific low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Low-back pain (LBP) and related disabilities are major public health problems and a major cause of medical expenses, absenteeism and disablement. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) can be used as a therapeutic intervention for musculoskeletal disorders such as back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of LLLT in patients with non-specific low-back pain and to explore the most effective method of administering LLLT for this disorder.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 2), MEDLINE and CINAHL from their start to January 2007 and EMBASE, AMED and PEDro from their start to 2005 with no language restrictions. We screened references in the included studies and in reviews of the literature and conducted citation tracking of identified RCTs and reviews using Science Citation Index. We also contacted content experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating low level laser therapy as a light source treatment for non-specific low-back pain were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group and extracted data. Consensus was used to resolve disagreements. Clinically and statistically homogeneous studies were pooled using the fixed-effect model; clinically homogeneous and statistically heterogeneous studies were pooled using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs with reasonable quality were included in the review. All of them were published in English. Because of clinical heterogeneity in study populations, interventions used and reported outcomes, meta-analysis was not possible to determine an overall effect for pain, disability and range of motion. Three studies (n=168) separately showed a significant pain relief effect of LLLT compared to sham therapy for sub-acute and chronic low-back pain. These effects were only observed at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups. Long-term follow-ups were not reported. There was insufficient evidence to investigate the difference between LLLT and comparison groups for pain-related disability. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of LLLT on anterior-posterior lumbar range of motion compared to control group in short-term follow-up. The relapse rate in the LLLT group was significantly lower than in the control group at six months follow-up period according to the findings of two trials. One study (n=50) reported a significant improvement in pain in LLLT group versus exercise therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No side effects were reported. However, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions. There is a need for further methodologically rigorous RCTs to evaluate the effects of LLLT compared to other treatments, different lengths of treatment, different wavelengths and different dosages. Comparison of different LLLT treatments will be more reasonable if dose calculation methods are harmonized.