Dataset Information

Efficacy of Bee Venom Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: Bee venom acupuncture (BVA) is an effective treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP) through the pharmacological effects of bee venom and the simultaneous stimulation of acupoints. However, evidence of its efficacy and safety in humans remains unclear. Using a double-blind, randomized study, 54 patients with non-specific CLBP were assigned to the BVA and sham groups. All participants underwent six sessions of real or sham BVA for 3 weeks, in addition to administration of 180 mg of loxonin per day. The primary outcome, that is, "bothersomeness" derived from back pain, was assessed using the visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, dysfunction related to back pain (Oswestry Disability Index), quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension), and depressive mood (Beck's depression inventory). Outcomes were evaluated every week during the treatment period and followed up at weeks 4, 8, and 12. After 3 weeks of the treatment, significant improvements were observed in the bothersomeness, pain intensity, and functional status in the BVA group compared with the sham group. Although minimal adverse events were observed in both groups, subsequent recovery was achieved without treatment. Consequently, our results suggest that it can be used along with conventional pharmacological therapies for the treatment of CLBP.

SUBMITTER: Seo BK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5705976 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of Bee Venom Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial.

Seo Byung-Kwan BK Han Kyungsun K Kwon Ojin O Jo Dae-Jean DJ Lee Jun-Hwan JH

Toxins 20171107 11

Bee venom acupuncture (BVA) is an effective treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP) through the pharmacological effects of bee venom and the simultaneous stimulation of acupoints. However, evidence of its efficacy and safety in humans remains unclear. Using a double-blind, randomized study, 54 patients with non-specific CLBP were assigned to the BVA and sham groups. All participants underwent six sessions of real or sham BVA for 3 weeks, in addition to administration of 180 mg of loxonin per ...[more]

PMID: 29112155

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic non-specific low back pain is the most common medical problem for which patients seek complementary and alternative medical treatment, including bee venom acupuncture. However, the effectiveness and safety of such treatments have not been fully established by randomized clinical trials. The aim of this study is to determine whether bee venom acupuncture is effective for improving pain intensity, functional status and quality of life of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.Methods/designThis study is a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial with two parallel arms. Fifty-four patients between 18 and 65 years of age with non-radicular chronic low back pain experiencing low back pain lasting for at least the previous three months and ≥ 4 points on a 10-cm visual analog scale for bothersomeness at the time of screening will be included in the study. Participants will be randomly allocated into the real or sham bee venom acupuncture groups and treated by the same protocol to minimize non-specific and placebo effects. Patients, assessors, acupuncturists and researchers who prepare the real or sham bee venom acupuncture experiments will be blinded to group allocation. All procedures, including the bee venom acupuncture increment protocol administered into predefined acupoints, are designed by a process of consensus with experts and previous researchers according to the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture. Bothersomeness measured using a visual analogue scale will be the primary outcome. Back pain-related dysfunction, pain, quality of life, depressive symptoms and adverse experiences will be measured using the visual analogue scale for pain intensity, the Oswestry Disability Index, the EuroQol 5-Dimension, and the Beck's Depression Inventory. These measures will be recorded at baseline and 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 weeks.DiscussionThe results from this study will provide clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of bee venom acupuncture in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.Trial registrationThis study is registered with the United States National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry: NCT01491321.

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain is a common problem and is associated with high costs, including those related to health care and indirect costs due to absence at work or reduced productivity. Previous studies have demonstrated that acupuncture or electroacupuncture can relieve low back pain. Electronic acupuncture shoes (EAS) are a novel device designed in this study. This device combines the properties of acupuncture and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for clinical use.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of EAS in patients with chronic low back pain.MethodsIn this prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study, the data of 83 patients who experienced chronic low back pain were analyzed. Patients came to our clinic for 20 visits and underwent assessment and treatment. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either EAS plus placebo nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (EAS group, n=42) or sham EAS plus NSAIDs (NSAID group, n=41). The visual analog scale (VAS) score and range of motion were assessed at baseline, before and after each EAS treatment, and 2 weeks after the last treatment. The time for achieving pain remission was recorded. Quality of life was assessed at the 2nd, 14th, and 20th visits.ResultsAfter 6 weeks of treatment, the treatment success rate in each visit in the EAS group was higher than that in the NSAID group, as revealed by the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, but significant differences were observed only during the 16th visit in the ITT analysis (EAS group: 31/37, 84% and NSAID group: 21/34, 62%; P=.04). The change in the VAS score from baseline in each visit in the EAS group was greater than that in the NSAID group, as revealed by the ITT and PP analyses, and significant differences were observed in the 5th visit and 9th visit in the ITT analysis (P=.048 and P=.048, respectively). Significant differences were observed in the left rotation in the 2nd visit and 4th visit (P=.049 and P=.03, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the VAS score before and after treatment in each visit and in the quality of life in both groups.ConclusionsEAS might serve as a reliable alternative therapeutic tool for patients with chronic low back pain who are contraindicated for oral NSAIDs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02468297 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02468297.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation alone and in combination with cognitive behavioural management in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.DesignDouble blind parallel group randomised controlled trial with six months' follow-up conducted May 2011-March 2013. Participants, physiotherapists, assessors, and analyses were blinded to group allocation.SettingInterdisciplinary chronic pain centre.Participants135 participants with non-specific chronic low back pain >12 weeks were recruited from 225 patients assessed for eligibility.InterventionParticipants were randomised to receive anodal (20 minutes to motor cortex at 2 mA) or sham transcranial direct current stimulation (identical electrode position, stimulator switched off after 30 seconds) for five consecutive days immediately before cognitive behavioural management (four week multidisciplinary programme of 80 hours).Main outcomes measuresTwo primary outcome measures of pain intensity (0-100 visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry disability index) were evaluated at two primary endpoints after stimulation and after cognitive behavioural management.ResultsAnalyses of covariance with baseline values (pain or disability) as covariates showed that transcranial direct current stimulation was ineffective for the reduction of pain (difference between groups on visual analogue scale 1 mm (99% confidence interval -8.69 mm to 6.3 mm; P=0.68)) and disability (difference between groups 1 point (-1.73 to 1.98; P=0.86)) and did not influence the outcome of cognitive behavioural management (difference between group 3 mm (-10.32 mm to 6.73 mm); P=0.58; difference between groups on Oswestry disability index 0 point (-2.45 to 2.62); P=0.92). The stimulation was well tolerated with minimal transitory side effects.ConclusionsThis results of this trial on the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation for the reduction of pain and disability do not support its clinical use for managing non-specific chronic low back pain.Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN89874874.

Project description:Chronic back pain is a major public health problem and the primary reason patients seek acupuncture treatment. Therefore, an objective assessment of acupuncture efficacy is critical for making informed decisions about its appropriate role for patients with this common condition. This study addresses methodological shortcomings that have plagued previous studies evaluating acupuncture for chronic low back pain.A total of 640 participants (160 in each of four arms) between the ages of 18 and 70 years of age who have low back pain lasting at least 3 months will be recruited from integrated health care delivery systems in Seattle and Oakland. They will be randomized to one of two forms of Traditional Chinese Medical (TCM) acupuncture needling (individualized or standardized), a "control" group (simulated acupuncture), or to continued usual medical care. Ten treatments will be provided over 7 weeks. Study participants and the "Diagnostician" acupuncturists who evaluate participants and propose individualized treatments will be masked to the acupuncture treatment actually assigned each participant. The "Therapist" acupuncturists providing the treatments will not be masked but will have limited verbal interaction with participants. The primary outcomes, standard measures of dysfunction and bothersomeness of low back pain, will be assessed at baseline, and after 8, 26, and 52 weeks by telephone interviewers masked to treatment assignment. General health status, satisfaction with back care, days of back-related disability, and use and costs of healthcare services for back pain will also be measured. The primary analysis comparing outcomes by randomized treatment assignment will be analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value. For both primary outcome measures, this trial will have 99% power to detect the presence of a minimal clinically significant difference among all four treatment groups and over 80% power for most pairwise comparisons. Secondary analyses will compare the proportions of participants in each group that improve by a clinically meaningful amount.Results of this trial will help clarify the value of acupuncture needling as a treatment for chronic low back pain.Clinical Trials.gov NCT00065585.

Project description:IntroductionDiscogenic pain is the cause of pain in 26%-40% of patients with for low back pain. Consensus about treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain is lacking and most treatment alternatives are supported by limited evidence. The percutaneous implantation of hydrogels into the nucleus pulposus represents a promising regenerative intradiscal therapy. The hydrogel 'GelStix' is composed primarily of hydrolyzed polyacrylonitrile and acts as a reservoir of hydration, producing increased pressure and improved pH balance, potentially leading to disc preservation. We hypothesise that treatment with GelStix will lead to greater reduction in pain intensity at 6 months post-treatment compared with patients receiving sham treatment.Methods and analysisThis is a parallel group, randomised sham-controlled double-blind, multicentre trial to assess whether the GelStix device is superior to sham in reducing pain intensity in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. The study will be conducted in two regional hospitals in Europe. Seventy-two participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome will be the change in pain intensity between preoperative baseline and at 6 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, the patient's global impression of change scale, the use of pain medication and the disc degeneration process assessed by means of MRI. For change in pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life and disc height, mean values will be compared between groups using linear regression analysis, adjusted for treatment centre.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Canton Ticino, Switzerland (CE2982) and by the Medical Ethical Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (2016-2944). All patients that agree to participate will be asked to sign an informed consent form. Results will be disseminated through international publications in peer-reviewed journals, in addition to international conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT02763956.Protocol version7.1, 18 November 2020.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of Bee Venom Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial.

Publications

Efficacy of Bee Venom Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets