Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture-point stimulation combined with opioids for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pain is one of the most common and troublesome symptoms of cancer. Although potential positive effects of acupuncture-point stimulation (APS) on cancer pain have been observed, knowledge regarding the selection of the optimal APS remains unclear because of a lack of evidence from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Objective

This study aimed to carry out a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of different APS combined with opioids in treating moderate to severe cancer pain and rank these methods for practical consideration.

Methods

A comprehensive search of eight electronic databases was conducted to obtain RCTs involving different APS combined with opioids for moderate to severe cancer pain. Data were screened and extracted independently using predesigned forms. The quality of RCTs was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was the total pain relief rate. Secondary outcomes were the total incidence of adverse reactions, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, and the incidence of constipation. We applied a frequentist, fixed-effect network meta-analysis model to pool effect sizes across trials using rate ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Network meta-analysis was performed using Stata/SE 16.0.

Results

We included 48 RCTs, which consisted of 4,026 patients, and investigated nine interventions. A network meta-analysis showed that a combination of APS and opioids was superior in relieving moderate to severe cancer pain and reducing the incidence of adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, and constipation compared to opioids alone. The ranking of total pain relief rates was as follows: fire needle (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 91.1%), body acupuncture (SUCRA = 85.0%), point embedding (SUCRA = 67.7%), auricular acupuncture (SUCRA = 53.8%), moxibustion (SUCRA = 41.9%), transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) (SUCRA = 39.0%), electroacupuncture (SUCRA = 37.4%), and wrist-ankle acupuncture (SUCRA = 34.1%). The ranking of total incidence of adverse reactions was as follows: auricular acupuncture (SUCRA = 23.3%), electroacupuncture (SUCRA = 25.1%), fire needle (SUCRA = 27.2%), point embedding (SUCRA = 42.6%), moxibustion (SUCRA = 48.2%), body acupuncture (SUCRA = 49.8%), wrist-ankle acupuncture (SUCRA = 57.8%), TEAS (SUCRA = 76.3%), and opioids alone (SUCRA = 99.7%).

Conclusions

APS seemed to be effective in relieving cancer pain and reducing opioid-related adverse reactions. Fire needle combined with opioids may be a promising intervention to reduce moderate to severe cancer pain as well as reduce opioid-related adverse reactions. However, the evidence was not conclusive. More high-quality trials investigating the stability of evidence levels of different interventions on cancer pain must be conducted.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced, identifier CRD42022362054.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10272816 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture-point stimulation combined with opioids for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhang Qinglin Q Yuan Yuntong Y Zhang Meiling M Qiao Baohua B Cui Yiyuan Y Wang Ying Y Feng Li L

Frontiers in oncology 20230602

<h4>Background</h4>Pain is one of the most common and troublesome symptoms of cancer. Although potential positive effects of acupuncture-point stimulation (APS) on cancer pain have been observed, knowledge regarding the selection of the optimal APS remains unclear because of a lack of evidence from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs).<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to carry out a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of different APS combined with opioids in tr ...[more]

PMID: 37333815

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) is approved in the US for the management of chronic pain. Due to its high affinity for μ-opioid receptors with a slow dissociation profile, buprenorphine may potentially displace or prevent the binding of competing μ-opioid-receptor agonists, including immediate-release (IR) opioids, in a dose-dependent manner. Health care professionals may assume that the use of IR opioids for supplemental analgesia during BTDS therapy is not acceptable.Materials and methodsThis post hoc analysis evaluated the use of IR opioids as supplemental analgesia during the management of moderate-severe chronic pain with BTDS at 52 US sites (BUP3015S, NCT01125917). Patients were categorized into IR-opioid and no-IR-opioid groups. At each visit of the extension phase, adverse events, concomitant medications, and information from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were recorded.ResultsThe most common supplemental IR opioids prescribed during BTDS treatment (n=354) were hydrocodone-acetaminophen and oxycodone-acetaminophen. The mean daily dose of IR opioids (morphine equivalents) for supplemental analgesia was 22 mg. At baseline, BPI - pain intensity and BPI - interference scores were higher for patients in the IR-opioid group. In both treatment groups, scores improved by week 4, and then were maintained throughout 6 months of the open-label extension trial. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in both groups.ConclusionPatients who were prescribed IR opioids reported lower scores for BPI pain intensity and pain interference to levels similar to patients receiving BTDS without IR opioids, without increasing the rate or severity of treatment-emergent adverse events. Patients prescribed concomitant use of IR opioids with BTDS had greater treatment persistence. The results of this post hoc analysis provide support for the concomitant use of IR opioids for supplemental analgesia during the management of moderate-severe chronic pain with BTDS.

Project description:BackgroundInternationally, there is concern about the increased prescribing of pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). In part, this is related to limited knowledge about the long-term benefits and outcomes of opioid use for CNCP. There has also been increased injection of some pharmaceutical opioids by people who inject drugs, and for some patients, the development of problematic and/or dependent use. To date, much of the research on the use of pharmaceutical opioids among people with CNCP, have been clinical trials that have excluded patients with complex needs, and have been of limited duration (i.e. fewer than 12 weeks). The Pain and Opioids In Treatment (POINT) study is unique study that aims to: 1) examine patterns of opioid use in a cohort of patients prescribed opioids for CNCP; 2) examine demographic and clinical predictors of adverse events, including opioid abuse or dependence, medication diversion, other drug use, and overdose; and 3) identify factors predicting poor pain relief and other outcomes.Methods/designThe POINT cohort comprises around 1,500 people across Australia prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for CNCP. Participants will be followed-up at four time points over a two year period. POINT will collect information on demographics, physical and medication use history, pain, mental health, drug and alcohol use, non-adherence, medication diversion, sleep, and quality of life. Data linkage will provide information on medications and services from Medicare (Australia's national health care scheme). Data on those who receive opioid substitution therapy, and on mortality, will be linked.DiscussionThis study will rigorously examine prescription opioid use among CNCP patients, and examine its relationship to important health outcomes. The extent to which opioids for chronic pain is associated with pain reduction, quality of life, mental and physical health, aberrant medication behavior and substance use disorders will be extensively examined. Improved understanding of the longer-term outcomes of chronic opioid therapy will direct community-based interventions and health policy in Australia and internationally. The results of this study will assist clinicians to better identify those patients who are at risk of adverse outcomes and who therefore require alternative treatment strategies.

Project description:IntroductionMulti-modal analgesia is desirable for the management of acute pain since it can provide effective pain relief at lower doses, thereby aiding tolerability. Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) provides effective analgesia in models of acute pain. Co-crystallization can alter the pharmacokinetics of individual components, potentially improving tolerability. We sought to better understand the safety and tolerability of CTC in patients with acute postoperative pain.MethodsWe conducted a pooled analysis of safety data from three phase 3 randomized controlled trials in adults with acute moderate-to-severe pain following oral surgery, bunionectomy, and elective abdominal hysterectomy. We present data for CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID) and its comparators: tramadol 50 mg four times daily (QID) (one trial), tramadol 100 mg QID (two trials), celecoxib 100 mg BID (two trials), and placebo (three trials).ResultsIn total, n = 551 patients received CTC 200 mg BID, n = 183 received tramadol 50 mg QID, n = 368 received tramadol 100 mg QID, n = 388 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, and n = 274 received placebo. The prevalence of adverse events (AEs) related to study drug up to 48 h was numerically lower with CTC 200 mg BID (35.9%) than with tramadol 50 mg QID (47.5%) and 100 mg QID (44.8%) but greater than with celecoxib 100 mg BID (12.4%) and placebo (20.4%). The most frequent AEs related to study drug up to 48 h were somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting, which occurred more frequently in patients receiving tramadol 100 mg QID than in those receiving CTC 200 mg BID.ConclusionCTC 200 mg BID appears to be better tolerated than tramadol 100 mg QID, possibly because of reduced total exposure to tramadol. This may contribute to a more favorable benefit-risk profile for CTC versus individual components, making it a promising treatment for acute pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03108482, NCT02982161 (EudraCT: 2016-000592-24), NCT03062644 (EudraCT: 2016-000593-38).

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture-point stimulation combined with opioids for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture-point stimulation combined with opioids for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets