Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ju ZY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6486266 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults.
Ju Zi Yong ZY Wang Ke K Cui Hua Shun HS Yao Yibo Y Liu Shi Min SM Zhou Jia J Chen Tong Yu TY Xia Jun J
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20171202
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of acupuncture treatments for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.<h4>Search methods</h4>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four Chinese ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNeuropathic pain (NP) is expected to increase due to the high risk of global population aging. Acupuncture has a definite clinical effect on NP. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the effect on pain intensity and safety of acupuncture in patients with NP.MethodsAn encompassing search of specific authoritative databases in English, from their inception to 2022, was performed. The databases were as follows: Scopus, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily. All the randomized controlled trials regarding the acupuncture treatment of NP will be included. Methodological quality assessment of the included trials was assessed based on the risk of bias from the Cochrane handbook. A meta-analysis was performed for the main outcomes. In addition, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and funnel plot were also carried out.ResultsA total of 16 studies with 1,021 patients with NP were evaluated in a systematic review. According to the results of the overall meta-analysis in eight RCTs with 338 participants, the acupuncture group was better than the control group in improving changes in pain intensity (SMD -0.59, 95% CI: -0.95 to -0.23, P = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, five trials indicated that acupuncture was more effective in improving changes in pain intensity than sham acupuncture (SMD -0.54, 95% CI: -0.95 to -0.13, P = 0.01), two trials evaluated the effect on changes in pain intensity in the comparison of acupuncture and conventional treatments, no significant difference existed (SMD -0.61, 95% CI: -1.83 to 0.61, P = 0.33), and one trial compared acupuncture with blank control evaluating the effect of changes in pain intensity with a significant difference. Eleven studies mentioned the safety conditions and acupuncture-induced AEs were mild and reversible. Both the sensitivity analysis and funnel plot analysis showed that the meta-analysis was stable and irreversible without publication bias. The GRADE was rated as "very low."ConclusionThe acupuncture group had higher effectiveness than sham intervention or blank control for changes in pain intensity, but there is no significant difference between acupuncture and conventional treatments in treating NP. The acupuncture-induced adverse events were mild and reversible. However, the interpretation of our results should be performed cautiously due to the low methodological quality of selected publications.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022306461.
| S-EPMC9868276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Growing evidence indicates that neuropathic pain is frequently accompanied by cognitive impairments, which aggravate the quality of life of chronic pain patients. Here, we investigated whether acupuncture treatments can improve cognitive dysfunction as well as allodynia induced by neuropathic pain in mice. One week after the left partial sciatic nerve ligation (PSNL), acupuncture treatments on the acupoints GB30-GB34 (AP1), HT7-GV20 (AP2), or control points (CP) were performed for 4 weeks. Notably, the significant attenuations of mechanical allodynia and cognitive impairment were observed in the AP1 group, but not in PSNL, AP2, or CP groups. A random decision forest classifier based on the pain and cognitive functions displayed that the acupuncture group was clearly segregated from the other groups. We also demonstrated that acupuncture restored the reduced field excitatory post-synaptic potentials and was able to elevate the expression levels of glutamate receptors (NR2B and GluR1) in the hippocampus. Moreover, the expressions of Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II and synaptic proteins (pPSD-95 and pSyn-1) were enhanced by acupuncture treatment. These results suggest that acupuncture can enhance hippocampal long-term action through the regulation of the synaptic efficacy and that acupuncture may provide a viable option for managing both pain and cognitive functions associated with chronic neuropathic pain.
| S-EPMC6763606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOpioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.ObjectivesTo assess the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.Selection criteriaWe included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses.Main resultsSearches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review.Authors' conclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that buprenorphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.
| S-EPMC6481375 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6353163 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6481580 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6457997 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6485608 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6452908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMilnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.ObjectivesTo evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of milnacipran in the management of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 4th of January 2012, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.Selection criteriaWe included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Data collection and analysisWe extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently.Main resultsFive studies (4138 participants) were included, all of which were placebo-controlled, involved participants with fibromyalgia, and used titration to a target dose of 100 mg or 200 mg milnacipran. There were no other active comparators or studies in other neuropathic pain conditions. Study quality was generally good, although the imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Both doses of milnacipran provided moderate levels of pain relief to about 40% of those treated, compared to 30% with placebo, giving a number needed to treat of 8 to 10. Adverse events were common in both milnacipran (87%) and placebo (78%) groups, but serious adverse events (< 2%) did not differ between groups. Nausea and constipation were the most common events showing the greatest difference between groups (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome of 7 and 13 respectively, compared with placebo).Withdrawals for any reason were more common with milnacipran than placebo, and more common with 200 mg than 100 mg (NNH of 23 and 8.8 respectively, compared with placebo). This was largely driven by adverse event withdrawals, where the NNH compared with placebo was 14 for 100 mg, and 7.0 for 200 mg). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were more common with milnacipran than placebo but did not differ between doses (number needed to treat to prevent an additional unwanted outcome of 45 and 41 respectively).Authors' conclusionsThe evidence available indicates that milnacipran 100 mg or 200 mg is effective for a minority in the treatment of pain due to fibromyalgia, providing moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30%) to about 40% of participants, compared with about 30% with placebo. There were insufficient data to assess substantial levels of pain relief (at least 50%), and the use of last observation carried forward imputation may overestimate drug efficacy. Milnacipran is associated with increased adverse events and adverse event withdrawals, which were significantly greater for the higher dose. There were no data for the use of milnacipran for other chronic neuropathic pain conditions.
| S-EPMC4164830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some seem to be especially useful for neuropathic pain. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug that has recently been investigated for neuropathic pain relief, although it failed to get approval for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy from either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency.ObjectivesTo evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of lacosamide in the management of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (2011, Issue 4), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 2000 to August 2011) and EMBASE (2000 to August 2011) without language restriction, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.Selection criteriaWe included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks duration or longer, comparing lacosamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted data for efficacy and adverse events and examined issues of study quality, including risk of bias assessments. Where possible, we calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals.Main resultsWe included six studies; five (1863 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) and one (159 participants) in fibromyalgia. All were placebo-controlled and titrated to a target dose of 200 mg, 400 mg or 600 mg lacosamide daily, given as a divided dose. Study reporting quality was generally good, although the imputation method of last observation carried forward used in analyses of the primary outcomes is known to known to impart major bias where, as here, adverse event withdrawal rates were high. This, together with small numbers of patients and events for most outcomes at most doses meant that most results were of low quality, with moderate quality evidence available for some efficacy outcomes for 400 mg lacosamide.There were too few data for analysis of the 200 mg dose for painful diabetic neuropathy or any dose for fibromyalgia.In painful diabetic neuropathy, lacosamide 400 mg provided statistically increased rates of achievement of "moderate" and "substantial" benefit (at least 30% and at least 50% reduction from baseline in patient-reported pain respectively) and the patient global impression of change outcome of "much or very much improved". In each case the extra proportion benefiting above placebo was about 10%, yielding numbers needed to treat to benefit compared with placebo of 10 to 12. For lacosamide 600 mg there was no consistent benefit over placebo.There was no significant difference between any dose of lacosamide and placebo for participants experiencing any adverse event or a serious adverse event, but adverse event withdrawals showed a significant dose response. The number needed to treat to harm for adverse event withdrawal was 11 for lacosamide 400 mg and 4 for the 600 mg dose.Authors' conclusionsLacosamide has limited efficacy in the treatment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Higher doses did not give consistently better efficacy, but were associated with significantly more adverse event withdrawals. Where adverse event withdrawals are high with active treatment compared with placebo and when last observation carried forward imputation is used, as in some of these studies, significant overestimation of treatment efficacy can result. It is likely, therefore, that lacosamide is without any useful benefit in treating neuropathic pain; any positive interpretation of the evidence should be made with caution if at all.
| S-EPMC8406928 | biostudies-literature