Meta-analysis and sequential analysis of acupuncture compared to carbamazepine in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia.

BACKGROUND

In this randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing current acupuncture with carbamazepine for trigeminal neuralgia, meta- and sequential analyses were utilized.

AIM

To guide clinical decision making regarding the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia with carbamazepine.

METHODS

The RCT literature on needle comparison was searched in various Chinese biomedical databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Data, VIP Database, as well as international databases such as Excerpt Medica Database, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science, along with related clinical registration platforms such as World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, ChiCTR, and Clinical Trials up to 1 April 2020. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaborative Risk Bias tool, primary outcome measures (pain reduction) were analyzed using STATA meta-analysis, outcome measures were analyzed using trial sequential analysis 0.9.5.10 Beta sequential analysis, GRADE was used to assess the evidence, and adverse reactions were documented.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 16 RCTs with a total of 1231 participants. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in pain reduction between acupuncture and carbamazepine [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.95], although the quality of evidence was deemed to be of extremely low quality. Cumulative meta-analysis based on the year of publication indicated that carbamazepine treatment first demonstrated a statistically significant difference in pain reduction in 2014 and remained relatively stable over time [SMD = 1.84; 95%CI: 0.22-3.47]. Additionally, the number of adverse events associated with acupuncture was significantly lower compared to carbamazepine.

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture for trigeminal neuralgia is better than analgesia and safer than carbamazepine; however, firm conclusions still require a high-quality, multicenter, large-sample RCT to confirm these findings.