Dataset Information

Effect of Briefing on Acupuncture Treatment Outcome Expectations, Pain, and Adverse Side Effects Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

In observational studies, patients' treatment outcome expectations have been associated with better outcomes (ie, a placebo response), whereas concerns about adverse side effects have been associated with an in increase in the negative effects of treatments (ie, a nocebo response). Some randomized trials have suggested that communication from clinicians could affect the treatment outcomes by changing patients' expectations.

Objective

To investigate whether treatment outcome expectations and reported adverse side effects could be affected by different briefing contents before a minimal acupuncture treatment in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

Design, setting, and participants

This randomized single-blinded clinical trial was conducted among patients with CLBP at 1 outpatient clinic in Switzerland who had a pain intensity of at least 4 on a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10. Different recruitment channels were used to enroll patients. Data were collected from May 2016 to December 2017 and were analyzed from June to November 2018.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive either a regular expectation briefing or a high expectation briefing (effectiveness) and either a regular adverse side effect briefing or an intense adverse side effect briefing (adverse side effect) in a 2 × 2 factorial design. The intervention (briefing sessions and written materials) was standardized and delivered before the acupuncture treatment, with additional booster informative emails provided during the 4-week, 8-session acupuncture course.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was the patients' expectations regarding the effectiveness of the acupuncture treatment (Expectation for Treatment Scale [ETS]) after the briefing and the subsequent pain intensity (numeric rating scale). The primary end point for the adverse side effect briefing was the adverse side effect score at the end of the acupuncture treatment, derived from session-by-session assessments of adverse side effects.

Results

A total of 152 patients with CLBP (mean [SD] age, 39.54 [12.52] years; 100 [65.8%] women) were included. The estimated group difference (regular vs high) for the ETS was -0.16 (95% CI -0.81 to 0.50, P = .64), indicating no evidence for a difference between intervention groups. There was also no evidence for a difference in pain intensity at the end of the acupuncture treatment between the groups with different expectation briefings. The adverse side effects score in the group with the intense adverse side effect briefing were estimated to be 1.31 times higher (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.82; P = .11) than after a regular adverse side effect briefing, but the finding was not statistically significant.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, suggestions regarding treatment benefits (placebo) and adverse side effects (nocebo) did not affect treatment expectations or adverse side effects. Information regarding adverse side effects might require more research to understand nocebo responses.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register Identifier: DRKS00010191.

SUBMITTER: Barth J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8433606 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acupuncture is a popular complementary and alternative treatment for chronic back pain. Recent European trials suggest similar short-term benefits from real and sham acupuncture needling. This trial addresses the importance of needle placement and skin penetration in eliciting acupuncture effects for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS:A total of 638 adults with chronic mechanical low back pain were randomized to individualized acupuncture, standardized acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, or usual care. Ten treatments were provided over 7 weeks by experienced acupuncturists. The primary outcomes were back-related dysfunction (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score; range, 0-23) and symptom bothersomeness (0-10 scale). Outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 8, 26, and 52 weeks. RESULTS:At 8 weeks, mean dysfunction scores for the individualized, standardized, and simulated acupuncture groups improved by 4.4, 4.5, and 4.4 points, respectively, compared with 2.1 points for those receiving usual care (P < .001). Participants receiving real or simulated acupuncture were more likely than those receiving usual care to experience clinically meaningful improvements on the dysfunction scale (60% vs 39%; P < .001). Symptoms improved by 1.6 to 1.9 points in the treatment groups compared with 0.7 points in the usual care group (P < .001). After 1 year, participants in the treatment groups were more likely than those receiving usual care to experience clinically meaningful improvements in dysfunction (59% to 65% vs 50%, respectively; P = .02) but not in symptoms (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS:Although acupuncture was found effective for chronic low back pain, tailoring needling sites to each patient and penetration of the skin appear to be unimportant in eliciting therapeutic benefits. These findings raise questions about acupuncture's purported mechanisms of action. It remains unclear whether acupuncture or our simulated method of acupuncture provide physiologically important stimulation or represent placebo or nonspecific effects.

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: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.