BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies may be used as a non-pharmacological approach to chronic pain management. While hundreds of trials about individual CAM modality have been conducted, a comprehensive overview of their results is currently lacking for pain clinicians and researchers.
AIM: This umbrella review synthesized the quality of meta-analytic evidence supporting the efficacy, tolerability and safety of CAM therapies for the management of chronic pain.
MATERIALS & METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched from October 1991 to November 2016. Reviews of clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) with meta-analysis investigating the utility of any CAM modality for chronic pain were eligible. Pain relief post-intervention was the main outcome and secondary outcomes included patients' adherence and incidence of adverse effects during CAM protocol.
RESULTS: Twenty-six reviews (207 clinical trials, >12,000 participants) about 18 CAM modalities, falling under natural products, mind and body practices or other complementary health approaches were included. Inhaled cannabis, graded motor imagery, and Compound Kushen injection (a form of Chinese medicine) were found the most efficient (with moderate-to-high effect sizes and low heterogeneity) and tolerable (≥80% of adherence to study protocols) for chronic pain relief. When reported, adverse effects related to these CAM were minor.
CONCLUSION: Although several CAM were found effective for chronic pain relief, it remains unclear when these modalities are a reasonable choice against or in conjunction with mainstream treatments. In that sense, future research with a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of CAM overall efficacy and patient adherence/tolerance is needed.
RESULTS: Of the 2,545 citations identified at the title and abstract level, a total of 156 publications were included. Most trials enrolled patients with pain symptoms of at least moderate intensity (e.g., >5 on a 0- to 10-point numeric rating scale for pain). Across interventions, pain intensity was the most commonly reported outcome, followed by back-specific function. When present, observed benefits for pain were generally in the small (5 to 10 points on a 0- to 100-point visual analog scale or 0.5 to 1.0 points on a 0- to 10-point numeric rating scale) to moderate (10 to 20 points) range. Effects on function were generally smaller than effects on pain; in some cases, there were positive effects on pain but no effects on function, and fewer studies measured function than pain. Benefits were mostly measured at short-term followup. For acute low back pain, evidence suggested that NSAIDs (strength of evidence [SOE]: low to moderate), skeletal muscle relaxants (SOE; moderate), opioids (SOE; low), exercise (SOE; low), and superficial heat (SOE; moderate) are more effective than placebo, no intervention, or usual care, and that acetaminophen (SOE; low) and systemic corticosteroids (SOE; low) are no more effective than placebo. For chronic low back pain, effective therapies versus placebo, sham, no treatment, usual care, or wait list are NSAIDs, opioids, tramadol, duloxetine, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, and exercise (SOE; moderate) and benzodiazepines, psychological therapies, massage, yoga, tai chi, and low-level laser therapy (SOE; low); spinal manipulation was as effective as other active interventions (SOE; moderate). Few trials evaluated the effectiveness of treatments for radicular low back pain, but the available evidence found that benzodiazepines, corticosteroids, traction, and spinal manipulation were not effective or were associated with small effects (SOE; low). Relatively few trials directly compared the effectiveness of different medications or different nonpharmacological therapies, or compared pharmacological versus nonpharmacological therapies, and they generally found no clear differences in effects. Pharmacological therapies were associated with increased risk of adverse events versus placebo (SOE; low to moderate). Trials were not designed or powered to detect serious harms from pharmacological therapies. Although rates appeared to be low and there was not an increased risk of serious harms versus placebo, this does not rule out significant risk from some treatments. For nonpharmacological therapies, assessment of harms was suboptimal, but serious harms appeared to be rare (SOE; low).
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies may be used as a non-pharmacological approach to chronic pain management. While hundreds of trials about individual CAM modality have been conducted, a comprehensive overview of their results is currently lacking for pain clinicians and researchers.
AIM:
This umbrella review synthesized the quality of meta-analytic evidence supporting the efficacy, tolerability and safety of CAM therapies for the management of chronic pain.
MATERIALS & METHODS:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched from October 1991 to November 2016. Reviews of clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) with meta-analysis investigating the utility of any CAM modality for chronic pain were eligible. Pain relief post-intervention was the main outcome and secondary outcomes included patients' adherence and incidence of adverse effects during CAM protocol.
RESULTS:
Twenty-six reviews (207 clinical trials, >12,000 participants) about 18 CAM modalities, falling under natural products, mind and body practices or other complementary health approaches were included. Inhaled cannabis, graded motor imagery, and Compound Kushen injection (a form of Chinese medicine) were found the most efficient (with moderate-to-high effect sizes and low heterogeneity) and tolerable (≥80% of adherence to study protocols) for chronic pain relief. When reported, adverse effects related to these CAM were minor.
CONCLUSION:
Although several CAM were found effective for chronic pain relief, it remains unclear when these modalities are a reasonable choice against or in conjunction with mainstream treatments. In that sense, future research with a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of CAM overall efficacy and patient adherence/tolerance is needed.
