Corrigendum: Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture VS neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the treatment of chronic low back pain in active-duty personals: A single-center, randomized control study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.945210.].

Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture VS neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the treatment of chronic low back pain in active-duty personals: A single-center, randomized control study.

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent form of chronic pain in active-duty military personnel worldwide. Electroacupuncture (EA) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) are the two most widely used treatment methods in the military, while evidence for their benefits is lacking. The aim of this randomized clinical trial is to investigate the effectiveness of EA vs. NMES in reducing pain intensity among active-duty navy personals with chronic LBP. Methods: The study is designed as a single-center, randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome is a positive categorical response for treatment success in the first-time follow-up, which is predesignated as a two-point or greater decrease in the NRS score and combined with a score > 3 on the treatment satisfaction scale. The secondary outcomes include pain intensity, rate of treatment success, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) score along with muscular performance. The first follow-up starts on the first day after completing the last treatment session, and then the 4-weeks and 12-weeks follow-up are applied via telephone visit. Results: Eighty-five subjects complete the treatment diagram and are included in the analysis. For the primary outcome, no difference has been found between EA and NMES, with 65.1% (28 in 43) individuals reporting a positive response to EA treatment, while 53.5% (23 in 43) in NMES. However, for longer follow-ups, superiority in positive response of EA has been found in 4-weeks (26 in 39, 66.7% vs. 16 in 40, 40%; P = 0.018) and 12-weeks (24 in 36, 66.7% vs. 12 in 36, 33.3%; P = 0.005) follow-up. In the regression analysis, baseline pain intensity and FABQ score are identified to be highly associated with positive treatment outcomes. Finally, the subgroup analysis suggests that EA treatment is associated with better long-term outcomes in patients with LBP with a severe pain score (NRS score >4, Figure 4B) and stronger fear-avoidance beliefs. Conclusion: Both the EA and NMES are associated with a positive response in treating military LBP, and the former offers lasting benefits in the later follow-ups. Thus, electroacupuncture is a more recommended treatment for military LBP. A lot of research is needed to verify an efficient and standardized treatment session, with more information and evidence about indications for these treatments. Trial registration: ChiCTR, (ChiCTR2100043726); registered February 27, 2021.

The safety and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization combined with sorafenib and sorafenib mono-therapy in patients with BCLC stage B/C hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) are recommended therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but their combined efficacy remains unclear. METHODS: Between August 2004 and November 2014, 104 patients with BCLC stage B/C HCC were enrolled at the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, China. Forty-eight patients were treated with sorafenib alone (sorafenib group) and 56 with TACE plus sorafenib (TACE + sorafenib group). Baseline demographic/clinical data were collected. The primary outcomes were median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR) and sorafenib-related adverse events (AEs). Baseline characteristics associated with disease prognosis were identified using multivariate Cox hazards regression. RESULTS: The mean age of the 104 patients (94 males; 90.38%) was 49.02 ± 12.29 years. Of the baseline data, only albumin level (P = 0.028) and Child-Pugh class (P = 0.017) differed significantly between groups. Median OS did not differ significantly between the sorafenib and TACE + sorafenib groups (18.0 vs. 22.0 months, P = 0.223). Median PFS was significantly shorter in the sorafenib group than that in the TACE + sorafenib group (6.0 vs. 8.0 months, P = 0.004). Six months after treatments, the ORRs were similar between the sorafenib and TACE + sorafenib groups (12.50% vs. 18.75%, P = 0.425). The rates of grade III-IV adverse events in sorafenib and TACE + sorafenib groups were 29.2% vs. 23.2%, respectively. TACE plus sorafenib treatment (HR = 0.498, 95% CI = 0.278-0.892), no vascular invasion (HR = 0.354, 95% CI = 0.183-0.685) and Child-Pugh class A (HR = 0.308, 95% CI = 0.141-0.674) were significantly associated with better OS, while a larger tumor number was predictive of poorer OS (HR = 1.286, 95% CI = 1.031-1.604). TACE plus sorafenib treatment (HR = 0.461, 95% CI = 0.273-0.780) and no vascular invasion (HR = 0.557, 95% CI = 0.314-0.988) were significantly associated with better PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sorafenib alone, combining TACE with sorafenib might prolong survival and delay disease progression in patients with advanced HCC.

Tumor stage and primary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma at a large tertiary hospital in China: A real-world study.

The current clinical reality of tumor stages and primary treatments of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is poorly understood. This study reviewed the distribution of tumor stages and primary treatment modalities among a large population of patients with primary HCC. Medical records of patients treated between January 2003 and October 2013 for primary HCC at our tertiary hospital in China were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 6241 patients were analyzed. The distribution of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages was as follows: stage 0/A, 28.9%; stage B, 16.2%; stage C, 53.6%; stage D, 1.3%. The distribution of Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) stages was as follows: stage I, 8.4%; stage IIa, 1.5%; stage IIb, 29.0%; stage IIIa, 10.0%; stage IIIb, 33.6%; stage IVa, 3.4%; stage IVb, 2.5%; stage Va, 0.2%; stage Vb, 11.4%. The most frequent therapy was hepatic resection for patients with BCLC-0/A/B disease, and transarterial chemoembolization for patients with BCLC-C disease. Both these treatments were the most frequent for patients with HKLC I to IIIb disease, while systemic chemotherapy was the most frequent first-line therapy for patients with HKLC IVa or IVb disease. The most frequent treatment for patients with HKLC Va/Vb disease was traditional Chinese medicine. In conclusion, Prevalences of BCLC-B and -C disease, and of HKLC I to IIIb disease, were relatively high in our patient population. Hepatic resection and transarterial chemoembolization were frequent first-line therapies.

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Efficacy of Simo Decoction and Acupuncture or Chewing Gum Alone on Postoperative Ileus in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Hepatectomy.

To compare the efficacy of simo decoction (SMD) combined with acupuncture at the tsusanli acupoint or chewing gum alone for treating postoperative ileus in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after hepatectomy.In postoperative ileus, a frequent complication following hepatectomy, bowel function recovery is delayed, which increases length of hospital stay. Studies suggest that chewing gum may reduce postoperative ileus; SMD and acupuncture at the tsusanli acupoint have long been used in China to promote bowel movement.Patients with primary HCC undergoing hepatectomy between January 2015 and August 2015 were randomized to receive SMD and acupuncture (n = 55) or chewing gum (n = 53) or no intervention (n = 54) starting on postoperative day 1 and continuing for 6 consecutive days or until flatus. Primary endpoints were occurrence of postoperative ileus and length of hospital stay; secondary endpoints were surgical complications.Groups treated with SMD and acupuncture or with chewing gum experienced significantly shorter time to first peristalsis, flatus, and defecation than the no-intervention group (all P < 0.05). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the combined SMD and acupuncture group (mean 14.0 d, SD 4.9) than in the no-intervention group (mean 16.5 d, SD 6.8; P = 0.014), while length of stay was similar between the chewing gum group (mean 14.7, SD 6.2) and the no-intervention group (P = 0.147). Incidence of grades I and II complications was slightly lower in both intervention groups than in the no-intervention group.The combination of SMD and acupuncture may reduce incidence of postoperative ileus and shorten hospital stay in HCC patients after hepatectomy. Chewing gum may also reduce incidence of ileus but does not appear to affect hospital stay. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02438436.).

Glutamine supplementation for critically ill adults.

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is a non-essential amino acid which is abundant in the healthy human body. There are studies reporting that plasma glutamine levels are reduced in patients with critical illness or following major surgery, suggesting that glutamine may be a conditionally essential amino acid in situations of extreme stress. In the past decade, several clinical trials examining the effects of glutamine supplementation in patients with critical illness or receiving surgery have been done, and the systematic review of this clinical evidence has suggested that glutamine supplementation may reduce infection and mortality rates in patients with critical illness. However, two recent large-scale randomized clinical trials did not find any beneficial effects of glutamine supplementation in patients with critical illness. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to:1. assess the effects of glutamine supplementation in critically ill adults and in adults after major surgery on infection rate, mortality and other clinically relevant outcomes;2. investigate potential heterogeneity across different patient groups and different routes for providing nutrition. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group (CARG) Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1950 to May 2013); EMBASE (1980 to May 2013) and Web of Science (1945 to May 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled clinical trials with random or quasi-random allocation that examined glutamine supplementation versus no supplementation or placebo in adults with a critical illness or undergoing elective major surgery. We excluded cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the relevant information from each included study using a standardized data extraction form. For infectious complications and mortality and morbidity outcomes we used risk ratio (RR) as the summary measure with the 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated, where appropriate, the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) and the number needed to treat to harm (NNTH). We presented continuous data as the difference between means (MD) with the 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 1999 titles, of which 53 trials (57 articles) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The 53 included studies enrolled a total of 4671 participants with critical illness or undergoing elective major surgery. We analysed seven domains of potential risk of bias. In 10 studies the risk of bias was evaluated as low in all of the domains. Thirty-three trials (2303 patients) provided data on nosocomial infectious complications; pooling of these data suggested that glutamine supplementation reduced the infectious complications rate in adults with critical illness or undergoing elective major surgery (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.87, P ＜ 0.00001, I² = 8%, moderate quality evidence). Thirty-six studies reported short-term (hospital or less than one month) mortality. The combined rate of mortality from these studies was not statistically different between the groups receiving glutamine supplement and those receiving no supplement (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02, P = 0.10, I² = 22%, low quality evidence). Eleven studies reported long-term (more than six months) mortality; meta-analysis of these studies (2277 participants) yielded a RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.12, P = 0.94, I² = 30%, moderate quality evidence). Subgroup analysis of infectious complications and mortality outcomes did not find any statistically significant differences between the predefined groups. Hospital length of stay was reported in 36 studies. We found that the length of hospital stay was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (MD -3.46 days, 95% CI -4.61 to -2.32, P < 0.0001, I² = 63%, low quality evidence). Slightly prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay was found in the glutamine supplemented group from 22 studies (2285 participants) (MD 0.18 days, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.29, P = 0.002, I² = 11%, moderate quality evidence). Days on mechanical ventilation (14 studies, 1297 participants) was found to be slightly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (MD - 0.69 days, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.02, P = 0.04, I² = 18%, moderate quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups for side effects and quality of life, however results were imprecise for serious adverse events and few studies reported on quality of life. Sensitivity analysis including only low risk of bias studies found that glutamine supplementation had beneficial effects in reducing the length of hospital stay (MD -2.9 days, 95% CI -5.3 to -0.5, P = 0.02, I² = 58%, eight studies) while there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for all of the other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found moderate evidence that glutamine supplementation reduced the infection rate and days on mechanical ventilation, and low quality evidence that glutamine supplementation reduced length of hospital stay in critically ill or surgical patients. It seems to have little or no effect on the risk of mortality and length of ICU stay, however. The effects on the risk of serious side effects were imprecise. The strength of evidence in this review was impaired by a high risk of overall bias, suspected publication bias, and moderate to substantial heterogeneity within the included studies.