Motion style acupuncture treatment (MSAT) for acute low back pain with severe disability: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial protocol

Data mining-based detection of the clinical effect on motion style acupuncture therapy combined with conventional acupuncture therapy in chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND:

Neck pain is the most common symptom of cervical spondylosis.

OBJECTIVE:

To discuss the indications for conventional acupuncture therapy (CAT) and motion style acupuncture therapy (MSAT) combined with CAT in neck pain patients using data mining.

METHOD:

Seventy-six participants with neck pain were recruited and randomly divided into two paralleled groups. Participants in intervention group received two-course MSAT at Houxi (SI3) and CAT at local neck region, while the control group received CAT at neck only. Take the SF-36 score scale and pain pressure threshold (PPT) values as the raw data and use data-mining to evaluate the clinical effect of two treatments.

RESULT:

Both groups have the best effect after one-time and one-course treatment. The main factors influencing effect most are Role-Emotional (RE), Physical Functioning (PF) and Social Functioning (SF) in intervention group, while it transfers to General Health (GH), RE and SF in control group. To patients in intervention group who scores 41.70 to 68.70 in PF before treatment, MSAT can effectively improve the restriction of activities and play an analgesic effect; to patients in control group who score 56.09 to 66.09 in GH before treatment, CAT may have curative effect.

CONCLUSION:

Both MSAT and CAT can improve the life-quality of neck pain patients. Patients with high general health status before treatment can choose CAT, while patients who score mild to moderate decline in physiological function can choose MSAT combined with CAT.

Acupuncture for acute non-specific low back pain: a randomised, controlled, multicentre intervention study in general practice-the Acuback study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a single treatment session of acupuncture, when applied in addition to standard treatment for acute low back pain (ALBP), reduces the time to recovery compared with standard treatment alone.

DESIGN

A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

SETTING

Conducted at 11 Norwegian general practitioners' (GPs') offices.

PARTICIPANTS

171 adults aged 20-55 years seeking their GP for ALBP (≤14 days) between March 2014 and March 2017. Patients with secondary back pain and previous sick leave and acupuncture treatment was excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were randomised to either the control group (CG) or the acupuncture group (AG) by online software. The CG received standard treatment according to the Norwegian guidelines, while the AG received one session of Western medical acupuncture treatment in addition to standard treatment. The statistician was blinded to group status.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was median days to recovery. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, global improvement, back-specific functional status, sick leave, medication and adverse effects.

RESULTS

185 participants were randomised, 95 in the CG and 90 in the AG. 14 participants did not receive the allocated intervention and 4 were excluded from the analysis. Thus, 167 participants were included in the analysis, 86 in the CG and 81 in the AG. The groups were similar according to baseline characteristics. The median time to recovery was 14 days for the CG and 9 days for the AG, HR 1.37 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.96), (p=0.089). No serious adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any statistically significant reduction in time-to-recovery after a single session of acupuncture for ALBP compared with standard care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01439412.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain

BACKGROUND

Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.

Survey of Integrative Treatment Practices of Korean Medicine Doctors for Cervical Disc Herniation: Preliminary Data for Clinical Practice Guidelines

A survey study was conducted in Korean medicine doctors who provide nonsurgical integrative treatment for cervical disc herniation (CDH) at spine-specialty hospitals to assess usual treatment practices, diagnosis and treatment methods, and related adverse events for CDH. The questionnaire was jointly developed by clinical experts and methodology experts and was administered to 197 Korean medicine doctors (response rate: 84.9% (n = 197/232)) practicing at spine-specialty Korean medicine hospitals for analysis of general sociodemographic information, practice patterns of CDH including diagnosis and treatment strategies, CDH prognosis, and treatment safety. The average clinical experience of respondents was 9.3±6.4 years, and 4.0±1.8 weeks were regarded to be needed for CDH pain to decrease by 50% and 9.1±3.4 weeks to decrease by 80%. Eight-Principle Pattern and Meridian System Identification were the most commonly used Korean medicine syndrome differentiation methods, and CDH was most often considered to be a result of Qi stagnation and Blood coagulation. The Spurling test was reported to be important in physical examination, and magnetic resonance (MR) images were mostly used for diagnosis and treatment of CDH of various diagnostic tools. Treatment mainly consisted of a nonsurgical, integrative multimodal approach comprising acupuncture, pharmacopuncture, herbal medicine, and Chuna manual therapy. Shinbaro pharmacopuncture and Chungpa-jun, which are well-established herbal treatments supported by evidence, were considered to be of high importance in CDH treatment. With regard to safety, acupuncture was considered to be the safest, while bee venom pharmacopuncture was of highest concern due to potential hypersensitivity. This study is the first report to investigate current practice patterns and approach of Korean medicine doctors to CDH treatment. This data may be of significance to Korean medicine doctors in drawing clinical guidelines and conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to generate high-level evidence on the effectiveness of nonsurgical integrative medicine treatments for CDH.

Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain may be caused by nerve damage, and is often followed by changes to the central nervous system. Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain, despite a number of clinical trials being undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of acupuncture treatments for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four Chinese databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 14 February 2017. We also cross checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with treatment duration of eight weeks or longer comparing acupuncture (either given alone or in combination with other therapies) with sham acupuncture, other active therapies, or treatment as usual, for neuropathic pain in adults. We searched for studies of acupuncture based on needle insertion and stimulation of somatic tissues for therapeutic purposes, and we excluded other methods of stimulating acupuncture points without needle insertion. We searched for studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture or other acupuncture techniques used in clinical practice (such as warm needling, fire needling, etc).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain relief. The secondary outcomes were any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement, withdrawals, participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We also calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where possible. We combined all data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies involving 462 participants with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (442 completers (251 male), mean ages 52 to 63 years). The included studies recruited 403 participants from China and 59 from the UK. Most studies included a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm) and all studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Most studies had unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (four out of six studies), allocation concealment (five out of six) and selective reporting (all included studies). All studies investigated manual acupuncture, and we did not identify any study comparing acupuncture with treatment as usual, nor any study investigating other acupuncture techniques (such as electroacupuncture, warm needling, fire needling).One study compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the two interventions on reducing pain intensity (n = 45; MD -0.4, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence), and neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain' (visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10) average score was 5.8 and 6.2 respectively in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, where 0 = no pain). There was limited data on quality of life, which showed no clear difference between groups. Evidence was not available on pain relief, adverse events or other pre-defined secondary outcomes for this comparison.Three studies compared acupuncture alone versus other therapies (mecobalamin combined with nimodipine, and inositol). Acupuncture may reduce the risk of 'no clinical response' to pain than other therapies (n = 209; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51), however, evidence was not available for pain intensity, pain relief, adverse events or any of the other secondary outcomes.Two studies compared acupuncture combined with other active therapies (mecobalamin, and Xiaoke bitong capsule) versus other active therapies used alone. We found that the acupuncture combination group had a lower VAS score for pain intensity (n = 104; MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.95) and improved quality of life (n = 104; MD -2.19, 95% CI -2.39 to -1.99), than those receiving other therapy alone. However, the average VAS score of the acupuncture and control groups was 3.23 and 4.25 respectively, indicating neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Furthermore, this evidence was from a single study with high risk of bias and a very small sample size. There was no evidence on pain relief and we identified no clear differences between groups on other parameters, including 'no clinical response' to pain and withdrawals. There was no evidence on adverse events.The overall quality of evidence is very low due to study limitations (high risk of performance, detection, and attrition bias, and high risk of bias confounded by small study size) or imprecision. We have limited confidence in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimated effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited data available, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of acupuncture for neuropathic pain in general, or for any specific neuropathic pain condition when compared with sham acupuncture or other active therapies. Five studies are still ongoing and seven studies are awaiting classification due to the unclear treatment duration, and the results of these studies may influence the current findings.

Effects of motion style acupuncture treatment in acute low back pain patients with severe disability: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, comparative effectiveness trial

Reviews of the efficacy of acupuncture as a treatment for acute low back pain (aLBP) have shown that there is insufficient evidence for its effect and that more research is needed. Motion style acupuncture treatment (MSAT) is novel in that it requires a part of the patient's body to move passively or actively while acupuncture needles are retained. A multicenter, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of MSAT in aLBP with severe disability. A total of 58 aLBP patients with severe functional disability (defined per Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ⩾60%) were recruited and assigned randomly to receive 1 session of either conventional diclofenac injection (n=29) or MSAT (n=29). The primary outcome measured improvement in LBP using the 10-point numerical rating scale of LBP, and the secondary outcome assessed disability using the Oswestry Disability Index at 30minutes and at 2, 4, and 24weeks after treatment. Analyses were by intention to treat. The numerical rating scale of the MSAT group decreased 3.12 (95% confidence interval=2.26, 3.98; P<.0001) more than that of the injection group and the Oswestry Disability Index of the MSAT group decreased 32.95% (95% confidence interval=26.88, 39.03; P<.0001) more than that of the injection group, respectively. The difference between the 2 groups maintained statistical significance at 2 and 4weeks after treatment. These results suggest that MSAT has positive effects on immediate pain relief and the functional recovery of aLBP patients with severe disability.

Acupuncture for acute non-specific low back pain: a protocol for a randomised, controlled multicentre intervention study in general practice--the Acuback Study

INTRODUCTION

Some general practitioners (GPs) treat acute low back pain (LBP) with acupuncture, despite lacking evidence of its effectiveness for this condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a single treatment session with acupuncture can reduce time to recovery when applied in addition to standard LBP treatment according to the Norwegian national guidelines. Analyses of prognostic factors for recovery and cost-effectiveness will also be carried out.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this randomised, controlled multicentre study in general practice in Southern Norway, 270 patients will be allocated into one of two treatment groups, using a web-based application based on block randomisation. Outcome assessor will be blinded for group allocation of the patients. The control group will receive standard treatment, while the intervention group will receive standard treatment plus acupuncture treatment. There will be different GPs treating the two groups, and both groups will just have one consultation. Adults who consult their GP because of acute LBP will be included. Patients with nerve root affection, 'red flags', pregnancy, previous sick leave more than 14 days and disability pension will be excluded. The primary outcome of the study is the median time to recovery (in days). The secondary outcomes are rated global improvement, back-specific functional status, sick leave, medication, GP visits and side effects. A pilot study will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Participation is based on informed written consent. The authors will apply for an ethical approval from the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics when the study protocol is published. Results from this study, positive or negative, will be disseminated in scientific medical journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01439412.