RESUMEN
Among the various non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD), pain is often cited as the most common and debilitating feature. Currently, the literature contains gaps in knowledge with respect to the various forms of treatment available, particularly non-pharmacological therapies. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review is to provide an examination of the literature on non-pharmacological therapies for pain in PD. We compared the findings of research articles indexed within various literature databases related to non-pharmacological treatments of pain in PD patients. Our review identified five major non-pharmacological methods of pain therapy in PD: acupuncture, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, neuromodulation, and exercise. Treatments such as exercise therapy found a reduction in pain perception due to various factors, including the analgesic effects of neurotransmitter release during exercise and increased activity leading to a decrease in musculoskeletal rigidity and stiffness. By the same token, hydrotherapy has been shown to reduce pain perception within PD patients, with authors often citing a combined treatment of exercise and hydrotherapy as an effective treatment for pain management. Multiple methods of neurostimulation were also observed, including deep brain stimulation and spinal cord stimulation. Deep brain stimulation showed efficacy in alleviating certain pain types (dystonic and central), while not others (musculoskeletal). Hence, patients may consider deep brain stimulation as an additive procedure for their current treatment protocol. On the other hand, spinal cord stimulation showed significant improvement in reducing VAS scores for pain. Finally, although the literature on massage therapy and acupuncture effectiveness on pain management is limited, both have demonstrated a reduction in pain perception, with common reasons such as tactile stimulation and release of anti-nociceptive molecules in the body. Although literature pertaining to non-pharmacological treatments of pain in PD is sparse, there is copious support for these treatments as beneficial to pain management. Further exploration in the form of clinical trials is warranted to assess the efficacy of such therapies.
Asunto(s)
Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Dolor/etiología , Enfermedad de Parkinson/complicaciones , Analgesia por Acupuntura/métodos , Terapia por Ejercicio/métodos , Humanos , Hidroterapia/métodos , Masaje/métodos , Estimulación Eléctrica Transcutánea del Nervio/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Teriparatide has been increasingly utilized in the management of osteoporosis. The efficacy of low and high dose teriparatide on lumbar spine bone mineral density, vertebral fracture incidence and pain is unknown. We sought to determine the efficacy of teriparatide on these patient-important outcomes using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate teriparatide to any comparator for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. The Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used by two independent reviewers to assess the strength and quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies (n = 6024) were included in this review, with 2855 patients receiving teriparatide and 3169 patients receiving placebo or control treatment. A teriparatide dose of 20 µg/day increased lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.34 standard deviation (SD) units higher (95% CI 0.19-0.48 SDs higher) in comparison to placebo. Relative to anti-resorptive agents, 20 µg/day of teriparatide had a range from 0.14 SD units to 0.96 SD units higher (95% CI, 0.08 SDs lower to 0.36 SDs higher, CI, 0.33-1.59 SDs higher, respectively). 20 µg/day teriparatide had a significant effect on pain severity to placebo or control (SMD 0.80, 95% CI, 1.16-0.43 SDs lower) and also decreased the incidence of vertebral fractures compared to placebo (relative risk 0.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.46). Arthralgia and extremity pain incidence were also calculated; there were 15 and 8 fewer events per 1000 patients with the use of 20 µg/day of teriparatide compared to placebo or control, respectively. CONCLUSION: High quality evidence supports the utilization of teriparatide 20 µg/day dose to significantly improve lumbar spine BMD and decrease incidence of vertebral fractures and pain severity relative to all comparators. 40 µg/day dose of teriparatide demonstrated significantly better results with prolonged treatment. This data is valuable for clinicians involved in the care of this growing demographic of patients. Further investigation on the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in higher doses for the long-term treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women should be conducted through high-quality clinical trials.
RESUMEN
Spinal fusion is one of the most common procedures performed in spine surgery. As rates of spinal fusion continue to increase, rates of complications such as nonunions continue to increase as well. Current evidence supporting the use of electrical stimulation to promote fusion is inconclusive. This review aimed to determine if postoperative electrical stimulation is more efficacious than no stimulation or placebo in promoting radiographic fusion in patients undergoing spinal fusion. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL and MEDLINE from date of inception to current. Ongoing clinical trials were also identified and reference lists of included studies were manually searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Trialists were contacted for any missing or incomplete data. Of 1184 articles screened, 7 studies were eligible for final inclusion (n = 941). A total of 487 patients received postoperative electrical stimulation and 454 patients received control or sham stimulation. All evidence was of moderate quality. Electrical stimulation (pulsed electromagnetic fields, direct current, and capacitive coupling) increased the odds of a successful fusion by 2.5-fold relative to control (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.43, p < 0.00001). A test for subgroup interaction by stimulation type, smoking status, and number of levels fused was not significant (p = 0.93, p = 0.82 and p = 0.65, respectively). This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate-quality evidence supporting the use of postoperative electrical stimulation as an adjunct to spinal fusion surgery. Patients treated with electrical stimulation have significantly greater rates of successful fusion. The level of evidence for this study is therapeutic level I.
Asunto(s)
Dolor de Espalda/terapia , Estimulación de la Médula Espinal/métodos , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Dolor de Espalda/etiología , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica , Humanos , Cuidados Posoperatorios , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Pain in Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debilitating symptom with a prevalence of 68%, yet is untreated 50% of the time. What is unclear, however, is which treatment is optimal for minimizing pain severity in PD. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of a variety of novel, complimentary, and conventional treatments for pain in PD and elucidate which therapy is the most effective. A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. To identify additional articles, manual searches of reference lists of included trials were also searched. Major neurology conference proceedings occurring between January 2014 and February 2018 were also searched to identify unpublished studies that may be potentially eligible. Twenty-five randomized controlled trials that encompassed medical, surgical, and complementary therapies met our inclusion criteria and exhibited moderate quality evidence. Two reviewers conducted assessments for study eligibility, risk of bias, data extraction, and quality of evidence rating. A conservative random-effects model was used to pool effect estimates of pain severity. The greatest reductions in pain were found with safinamide (Standardized mean difference = -4.83, 95% CI [-5.07 to -4.59], p < 0.0001), followed by cannabinoids and opioids, multidisciplinary team care, catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors, and electrical and Chinese therapies. Moderate effects in reducing pain were in pardoprunox and surgery, while the weakest effects were in dopaminergic agonists and miscellaneous therapies. Safinamide is an important adjunct to standard parkinsonian medication for alleviating pain in PD.