Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine / 2018 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 2890465 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2890465

Lingping Zhu, Yunhui Ma, Shasha Ye, Zhiqun Shu, "Acupuncture for Diarrhoea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Network Meta-Analysis", Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2018, Article ID 2890465, 12 pages, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2890465

Acupuncture for Diarrhoea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Network Meta-Analysis

Academic Editor: Gioacchino Calapai
Received24 Feb 2018
Accepted30 Apr 2018
Published27 May 2018

Abstract

Background. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of acupuncture, sham acupuncture, and drugs in the treatment of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of acupuncture and drugs were comprehensively retrieved from electronic databases (such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and CBM) up to December 2017. Additional references were obtained from review articles. With document quality evaluations and data extraction, Network Meta-Analysis was performed using a random-effects model under a frequentist framework. Results. A total of 29 studies (n = 9369) were included; 19 were high-quality studies, and 10 were low-quality studies. NMA showed the following: (1) the ranking of treatments in terms of efficacy in diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome is acupuncture, sham acupuncture, pinaverium bromide, alosetron = eluxadoline, ramosetron, and rifaximin; (2) the ranking of treatments in terms of severity of side effects in diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome is rifaximin, alosetron, ramosetron = pinaverium bromide, sham acupuncture, and acupuncture; and (3) the treatment of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome includes common acupoints such as ST25, ST36, ST37, SP6, GV20, and EX-HN3. Conclusion. Acupuncture may improve diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome better than drugs and has the fewest side effects. Sham acupuncture may have curative effect except for placebo effect. In the future, it is necessary to perform highly qualified research to prove this result. Pinaverium bromide also has good curative effects with fewer side effects than other drugs.

1. Introduction

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a disease with a high incidence rate, and diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) is a subtype of irritable bowel syndrome with a major clinical manifestation. IBS has a prevalence ranging from 1.1 to 29.2% in the whole population according to the Rome III criteria, with the diarrhoea-predominant type accounting for about 23.4% [1, 2]. Diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) leads to a great deal of trouble [3]. However, the pathogenesis of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome is not yet clear, and its aetiology is complex and may be caused by a variety of factors including visceral allergies, inflammatory responses, heredity, gastrointestinal motility disorders, intestinal infections, and psychosocial factors. In addition, there is a lack of morphological or biochemical abnormalities and other available organic diseases to explain the clinical symptoms [4, 5]. The current treatment methods for IBS-D include drugs and acupuncture treatment; common drugs include pinaverium bromide, eluxadoline, alosetron, ramosetron, rifaximin, and intestinal probiotics. Currently, increasing studies have shown that acupuncture may have some effect on IBS-D, but there are no efficacy comparisons between acupuncture and commonly used oral drugs, and each patient uses different acupuncture points, so we were interested in conducting a systematic review to resolve these two problems.

Now, more and more studies use sham acupuncture as the control of acupuncture. However, there is a debate on whether sham acupuncture has curative effect and to what extent sham acupuncture does affect the final result; this question could be solved with the Network Meta-Analysis.

In this study, by collecting previously published treatments of IBS-D in randomized controlled treatment studies using acupuncture and oral common drugs, we expected to determine the following issues: (1) a ranking of acupuncture and drugs in the treatment of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome; (2) a ranking of acupuncture and drugs in their side effects on diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome; (3) the extent to which sham acupuncture does effect the final result; (4) the acupoint distributions used to treat diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome.

2. Materials and Method

We conducted a standardized report based on the preferred reporting items of the PRISMA statement [6, 7].

2.1. Research Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and 4 Chinese databases [China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM)] to conduct a comprehensive database retrieval using a (acupuncture or electro-acupuncture Or acupuncture, Sham Acupuncture, pinaverium bromide, alosetron, eluxadoline, ramosetron, rifaximin), (randomized controlled trials or randomized controlled trials or clinical trials), and (IBS-D) strategy (the retrieval time was from the building of database to October, 2017). In addition, the same search was conducted for the reference reviews and meta-analyses cited in manual searches, with no language restrictions set (searching strategy in Supplementary 1).

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included randomized controlled trials that met the following eligibility criteria: (i) adult patients; (ii) single drug use; (iii) clinical trials with treatment duration greater than two weeks; (iv) articles that were not comments or commentary; and (v) patients that did not suffer from pregnancy or lactation, peptic ulcer, rectal disease, or liver or other systemic disease and had no previous history of gastroduodenal surgery or brain disease or surgery.

2.3. Research Options

Articles were independently screened by two researchers. Initially, NoteExpress software (Beijing Aegean Sea Music Technology Co., Ltd.) was used to delete duplicate records. The remaining summaries and full texts were reviewed on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and disagreements were resolved through discussion.

2.4. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Two reviewers (Lingping Zhu and Shasha Ye) independently extracted the relevant information from each eligible study based on a pre-prepared data abstraction sheet. Data included the location and study design of the trials, clinical characteristics, number of patients, patient age, diagnostic methods, treatment duration, outcome data, and side effects. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Jadad scale, including three items such as randomized (2 points), double-blinded (2 points), and withdrawals and drop-outs (1 point) [8]. A Jadad score of 3 or higher was considered to be high quality. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

The primary outcome was the number of people who showed effective treatment, with secondary outcomes including side effects and common acupuncture points. Common side effects included constipation and rash.

2.5. Data Synthesis and Analysis

The assessments of acupuncture and drug efficacy were based on a combination of the data extracted from the included trials, and then direct and indirect comparisons were used to assess the overall effect of acupuncture and medications. In this meta-analysis of the network, we used a random-effects model in a Bayesian framework. The odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used to analyse the effects of acupuncture and drugs on the efficacy of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. CIs with OR> 1.0 indicated high risk, and CIs not containing 1.0 were considered statistically significant. All analyses used the GeMTC package generated by R software [9, 10].

Node-splitting models were used to assess the consistency of the meta-analysis of the network to test whether the results of the direct and indirect comparisons were consistent within the treatment cycle [11]. In the absence of direct or indirect comparison results, the node-split model cannot be executed. Therefore, we use heterogeneity analysis to quantify the degree of heterogeneity of I2 calculations. I2 > 50 % of the value was considered heterogeneous throughout the experiment. To verify the robustness of the results, sensitivity analyses were performed by examining heterogeneity in each study and then recalculating the overall effect to see if any of the factors could affect the overall effect.

A mesh diagram, contribution graphs, and publication bias tests were drawn using STATA 14.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Included Research Features

A total of 1119 articles were obtained from the system search. After reviewing the literature, 40 duplicates were deleted. In addition, due to discrepancies in inclusion criteria, 1046 articles were excluded. Finally, a total of 33 trials were identified (Figure 1) and are listed in Table 1 [1140].


Publication DateAuthorExperiment group (n)Control group (n)Treatments versus ControlAge of experiment groupAge of controlDiagnosisDiagnosis criteriaExperiment EventsControl EventsTreatment DurationJadadGenderNationSide Effect€Side Effect ©Assessment tool

2015LI Xueqing3030NS/pinaverium bromide 50mg tid46±1644±16IBS-DROME III28248 weeks2MixedChina00symptom assessment tool (China) (4 points)
2014Zhan Daowei2928(LR3, ST36,SP6,ST25, ST37,GV20,EX-HN3)/pinaverium bromide 50mg tid42±1437±13IBS-DROME III26194 weeks3MixedChina00symptom assessment tool (China) (4 points)
2014Kong Suping2928(GV20,CV12, ST25, ST36, SP9, ST39)/pinaverium bromide 50mg tid38±1138±11IBS-DROME III26234 weeks3MixedChina00symptom assessment tool (China) (4 points)
2014Liu Shuying3030(GV20,EX-HN3,CV12,ST25,ST37,ST39)/pinaverium bromide 50mg tid41.4±11.841.77±8.99IBS-DROME III27234 weeks1MixedChina00symptom assessment tool (China) (4 points)
2013Wu Yuanjian3030(ST25, ST36, ST37, SP6, CV8)/pinaverium bromide 50mg tid37.9±10.239.8±11.2IBS-DROME III26244 weeks1MixedChina00symptom assessment tool (China) (4 points)
2012Pei Lixia3030(ST25, ST36, ST37, SP6, LR3, GV20, EX-HN3)/pinaverium bromide 50mg tid40.9±10.637.93±11.45IBS-DROME III27244 weeks3MixedChina00symptom assessment tool (China) (4 points)
2013LI HAO3535(ST 25, ST 36, ST37, SP6, LR3, GV20, GV29)/pinaverium bromide 50mg tid37.9±11.539.1±11.8IBS-DROME III33274 weeks5MixedChina00symptom assessment tool (China) (4 points)
2011Sun3030(ST 25, ST 36, SP6,LR3,DU20,EX-HN 3 and ST 37)/pinaverium bromide (50mg tid)38.81±11.838.59±11.45IBS-DROME III27244 weeks3MixedChina00symptom assessment tool (China) (4 points)
2010Shi3238(ST 25, ST 36, BL 20, BL 21, BL 23, BL 25 and ST 37)/pinaverium bromide (50mg tid)38.51±14.6538.68±15.72IBS-DROME III26204 weeks6MixedChina00Overall IBS symptom VAS score (10 points)
2017Lembo (1)426427Eluxadoline 100mg /placebo BID44.4±13.945.8±14.1IBS-DROME III1077312 weeks7MixedUnited States500/859450/808IBS-D global symptom score, Bristol Stool Form Scale
2017Lembo (2)383382Eluxadoline 100mg /placebo BID45.7±13.347.1±13.8IBS-DROME III1136212 weeks7MixedUnited StatesNSNSIBS-D global symptom score, Bristol Stool Form Scale
2013DOVE163159Eluxadoline 100mg /placebo BID43.6±10.944.6±12.5IBS-DROME III462212 weeks7MixedUnited States73/16578/159IBS Global Symptom score, IBS-SSS
2015Liang Zheng218209Pinaverium 50mg tid/placebo36.9±11.836.6±12.6IBSROME III131714 weeks7MixedChina40/21832/209Bowel Symptom Scale (10 points), Bristol stool form scale
1977Levy3030Pinaverium 50mg tid/placeboNSNSIBSClinical24172 weeks3MixedFrenchNSNSNS
1981Delmont2525Pinaverium 50mg tid/placeboNSNSIBSClinical19174 weeks4MixedFrenchNSNSNS
2005Lin Chang131128Alosetron 1mg/Vitamin C BID44±1243±12IBS-DROME I695112 weeks7MixedUnited States86/13065/128Average abdominal pain and stool consistency score (5 points)
2004William D.Chey279290Alosetron 1mg/Vitamin C BID46.2±13.546.9±12.9IBS-DClinical14411948 weeks7WomenUnited States297/348261/362Average abdominal pain and stool consistency score (5 points)
2004Lembo (1)147135Alosetron 2mg/Vitamin C BID48.9±15.549.4±13.8IBS-DRome II1006212 weeks6FemaleUnited States145/246127/246IBS-D global symptom score, Average stool consistency scores (5 points)
2004Lembo (2)457219Alosetron 2mg/Vitamin C BID48.8±14.048.6±13.6IBS-DRome II3209912 weeks6FemaleUnited StatesNSNSIBS-D global symptom score, Average stool consistency scores (5 points)
2007Krause177176Alosetron 1mg/Vitamin C BID4343IBS-DROME II765412 weeks7WomenUnited States102/17694/176IBS-D global symptom score, Average stool consistency scores (5 points)
2011Lee KJ175168Ramosetron 5ug Qd/Placebo43.4±12.145±13.1IBS-DRome III65644 weeks3MaleKorea69/14777/149IBS symptoms (5 points), Bristol Stool Form Scale
2008Matsueda (1)297104Ramosetron 1ug Qd, 5ug Qd, 10ug Qd/Placebo40.3±11.838.4±9.56IBS-DRome II1102812 weeks6MixedJapan177/30961/108IBS symptoms (5 points), Bristol Stool Form Scale
2015Fukudo S AB307102Ramosetron 1.25ug Qd, 2.5ug Qd, 5ug Qd/placebo40.9±10.640.2±10.1IBS-DRome III1212912 weeks3FemaleJapanNSNSIBS symptoms (5 points), Bristol Stool Form Scale
2016Fukudo S292284Ramosetron 2.5ug Qd/Placebo41.4±11.841.5±12.0IBS-DRome III1489112 weeks7FemaleJapan154/292118/284IBS symptoms (5 points), Bristol Stool Form Scale
2008Matsueda (2)263265Ramosetron 5ug Qd/Placebo40.7±11.2141.8±11.70IBS-DRome II1247212 weeks5MixedJapan163/270141/269IBS symptoms (5 points), Bristol Stool Form Scale
2014Fukudo S147149Ramosetron 5ug Qd/Placebo40.9±10.640.2±10.1IBS-DRome III582612 weeks7MaleJapan13/1756/168IBS symptoms (5 points), Bristol Stool Form Scale
2008Lembo191197Rifaximin 550mg bid/PlaceboNSNSIBS-DRome II100872 weeks4MixedMulticenterNSNSIBS-D global symptom score, IBS-associated bloating
2011Primentel (1)309314Rifaximin 550mg tid/Placebo46.2±15.045.5±14.6Non-CRome II126982 weeks7MixedMulticenter264/624296/634IBS symptoms (5 points), Bristol Stool Form Scale
2011Primentel (2)315320Rifaximin 550mg tid/Placebo45.9±13.946.3±14.6Non-CRome II1281032 weeks7MixedMulticenterNSNSIBS symptoms (5 points), Bristol Stool Form Scale
2017Lowe4336Acupuncture/sham42±1543±15IBSRome I23154 weeks7MixedCanada00IBS Symptoms (5 points), SF-36, IBS-36
2000Catherine Lowe2822Acupuncture/shamNSNSIBSNS16104 weeks3MixedCanadaNSNSNS
2009Anthony J7877Acupuncture/sham37.5±14.638.9±14.1IBSRome II32243 weeks6FemaleUnited States00IBS-Symptom severity scale, IBS-AR, QOL
2005Forbes2732Acupuncture/sham4344.4IBSRome+Manning131012 weeks7MixedUK00global symptom score, Bristol stool scale

In total, 9712 patients diagnosed with IBS-D/IBS were enrolled in the assessed studies, mean age was between 38 and 46 years, the diagnosis criteria included clinical criteria, ROME I-III, and the treatment duration was from 2 weeks to 48 weeks, mainly between 4 and 12 weeks. The following seven therapeutic methods were included: A: acupuncture; B: eluxadoline; C: pinaverium bromide; D: alosetron; E: ramosetron; F: rifaximin; and G: sham acupuncture; H: placebo (vitamin C, etc.). Documents included 10 articles from China, 9 articles from the United States, 2 papers from France, 2 papers from Canada, 1 paper from United Kingdom, 5 articles from Japan, 1 article from Korea, and 3 articles from multicentre locations. Using the Jadad scale assessment, the overall Jadad score for study quality ranged from 1 to 7, and the median Jadad score was 4 (see Table 1 for details).

3.2. Routine Paired Meta-Analysis

Compared with placebo, acupuncture significantly improved the symptoms of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (OR: 7.7, 95% CI: 3.8-16.0, I2 = 0%) (Figure 2); compared with placebo, sham acupuncture significantly improved the symptoms of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (OR:4.7, 95% CI: 2.0 to 11.0); compared with placebo, pinaverium bromide significantly improved the symptoms of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.5 to 4.1, I2 = 0%) (Figure 2); eluxadoline significantly improved the symptoms of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome compared with placebo (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4-2.8, I2 = 5.3%) (Figure 2); compared with placebo, alosetron also improved the symptoms of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.5-2.6, I2 = 53.3%); compared with placebo, ramosetron also improved the symptoms of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.5-2.4, I2 = 68.1%); and compared with placebo, rifaximin treatment improved the symptoms of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.0, I2 = 0%) (Figure 2). The efficacy of drugs compared with acupuncture and sham acupuncture was poor (Figure 2).

3.3. The Cumulative Probability Ranking

The cumulative probability ranking of the results for diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome patients is as follows: acupuncture, sham acupuncture, pinaverium, alosetron = eluxadoline, ramosetron, and rifaximin. The probability distribution rankings of eluxadoline were equal, so we chose the probability of the closest top rank as its ranking result. The efficacy of acupuncture was much higher than that of other drugs (P = 0.977), while sham acupuncture had a higher drug efficacy (P = 0.90) than pinaverium bromide (P=0.69), alosetron (P = 0.35), eluxadoline (P= 0.30), ramosetron (P=0.31), and rifaximin (P=0.81) (Figure 3, Table 2).


Methods/Rankings12345678

Acupuncture9.774500e-010.02216666670.00031666676.666667e-050.0000000000.00000000000.0000000000.000000e+00
Eluxadoline7.000000e-040.01831666670.11306666673.042167e-010.2602666670.24486666670.0583833331.833333e-04
Pinaverium Bromide0.000000e+000.03715000000.69371666671.282833e-010.0707833330.05270000000.0167333336.333333e-04
Alosetron4.333333e-040.01415000000.10213333333.490500e-010.3046500000.19836666670.0312000001.666667e-05
Ramosetron1.333333e-040.00563333330.04520000001.890667e-010.3126500000.37640000000.0709166670.000000e+00
Rifaximin1.666667e-050.00053333330.00390000001.546667e-020.0426833330.11986666670.8065000001.103333e-02
Sham Acupuncture2.126667e-020.90205000000.04166666671.385000e-020.0089666670.00768333330.0039833335.333333e-04
Placebo0.000000e+000.00000000000.00000000000.000000e+000.0000000000.00011666670.0122833339.876000e-01

There were 22 studies that reported side effect data (Table 1); there were no reported side effects from acupuncture, so acupuncture was not included in the analysis. The rest of the reported side effect data contained all other 6 treatment regimens (Table 3). Because the side effects of acupuncture were 0, its side effects were the lowest, followed by other drugs; the smallest side effects were for eluxadoline (P = 0.39) and pinaverium bromide (P = 0.21), and there were more side effects from rifaximin (P = 0.44) than from other drugs. Ramosetron also showed more side effects than alosetron (Figure 4).


Drugs/Possibility123456

Eluxadoline0.00892500.02658750.0826500.19535000.29675000.3897375
Pinaverium0.15541250.14580000.1947500.18400000.10732500.2127125
Alosetron0.36577500.40547500.1716750.04570000.00925000.0021250
Ramosetron0.03356250.12818750.3818250.33908750.08837500.0289625
Rifaximin0.43631250.29267500.1498000.06738750.02963750.0241875
Placebo0.00001250.00127500.0193000.16847500.46866250.3422750

3.4. Network Plot

We compared all of the included studies and drew network diagrams, with the studies incorporated into quality-based displays on a network map (Figure 5).

3.5. Acupuncture Preference Points

In view of the different acupuncture points selected for each study, we selected the most commonly used acupoints, including ST-25, ST-37, ST-36, SP-6, GV-20, and EX-HN3; the use of these 6 acupoints was 4 times more common than other acupoints (Table 4).


Acupoint NumberFrequency Positions

ST-2510Abdomen
ST-379Leg
ST-368Leg
SP-65Leg
GV205Head
EX-HN34Forehead

3.6. Brooks-Gelman-Rubin Diagnostic Plot, Density Plot, Node-Splitting Plot, and Cumulative Contribution Plot

By performing 20,000 convergence iterations, we obtained a Brooks-Gelman-Rubin diagnostic plot, and the track density map was acceptable; based on the node-splitting model, we found all studies in the region beneath the 4th line. We also obtained a cumulative contribution map from the STATA software (Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9).

3.7. Heterogeneity and Sensitivity Analysis

Using heterogeneity analysis, we found that alosetron and ramosetron had significant heterogeneity; based on the sensitivity analysis, we corrected the OR for alosetron (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.17-1.42) and the OR for placebo and ramosetron (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.22-1.39), and no large directional change occurred even after corrections (Figure 10).

3.8. Publication Bias

The funnel plot shows that all included studies were compared on a pairwise basis, and all the studies were found to be essentially symmetrical, indicating a small publication bias (Figure 11).

4. Discussion

Through NMA, this article found that the effect of acupuncture treatment on diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome was better than that of the assessed drugs, with close to no side effects. Previous studies have shown that the effects of acupuncture treatment on diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome are still not yet clear, but there are several relevant studies to prove its possible role in treatment. Several studies have confirmed the co-occurrence of IBS and the excessive release of proinflammatory cytokines and insufficiencies in anti-inflammatory cytokine secretion [41]. Animal studies have shown that electroacupuncture can significantly reduce the peripheral blood flow of patients with 5-HT positive reactant content and reduce the sensitivity of afferent nerves, thereby reducing visceral hypersensitivity [42]. Studies also indicate that acupuncture can significantly reduce rat colon and dorsal root ganglia 5-HT concentrations [43]. Animal experiments have shown that acupuncture may serve as an effective treatment by regulating the abnormal state of colon mast cells [44]. Previous studies have also shown that acupuncture can reduce the number of mast EA cells in ovalbumin-sensitized mice, increasing visceral sensory thresholds and improving visceral hypersensitivity [45]. In addition, acupuncture can relieve thalamic pain in patients with advanced and central signalling pathways involving 5-HT [46]. At the same time, studies have shown that acupuncture has low side effects, an idea that has reached a certain consensus [47].

However, previous meta-analyses showed no significant benefit of acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture groups in the treatment of IBS. Only a few studies from China have demonstrated the superiority of acupuncture relative to drugs [48]. Other studies have shown that acupuncture is not or only slightly superior to sham acupuncture treatment [37]. However, our study only selected patients with IBS-D, and the effect was more significant; whether acupuncture is better for IBS-D than it is for constipation or mixed IBS remains to be further studied. A large part of this study included post-2012 studies that were inconsistent in the acupoints selected between IBS-D and other types of IBS, and this study generally included the same acupuncture points to ensure consistency in the assessment of fixed acupuncture points; to yield definitive results, sham acupuncture groups should be increased in further studies.

However, in the past, most studies conducted a direct comparison between acupuncture and pinaverium bromide. There is no direct comparison between acupuncture and other drugs such as ramosetron, alosetron, rifaximin, and eluxadoline. In the future, direct comparisons can be used to compare differences in efficacy. At the same time, this article found that the evaluation scale used in acupuncture-related research is different from other drugs (only 4 points), which will lead to a bias in the evaluation to a certain extent. In the meantime, the quantity of previous acupuncture research is relatively low, so the conclusions remain to be confirmed; these findings can be verified by increasing the sample size and using multicentre double-blind randomized controlled studies.

This study also shows sham acupuncture for the treatment of IBS-D was more effective than other drugs. Previously, there was a lack of direct comparison between sham acupuncture and oral placebo drugs, our study provides an indirect result between sham acupuncture and oral drug placebo, and there exists some curative effect for IBS-D. Actually, sham acupuncture uses the blunt needle as control, which is the same as the mechanisms of acupressure, a previous comment showed sham acupuncture may be not a good control for experiment group [49], and our study has proved this point. Now, there are many studies using sham acupuncture as control group; whether the effect of acupuncture was underestimated still needs direct comparison between sham group and oral placebo. In the future, we need to use the drug placebo control group or improve the sham acupuncture method to weaken the curative effect of sham acupuncture.

This study shows that pinaverium bromide for the treatment of IBS-D was more effective and had fewer side effects than other drugs. Previously, there was a lack of NMA comparing pinaverium bromide and other drugs. A meta-analysis of antispasmodics showed that the pinaverium bromide-induced overall improvement in symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome was 1.55 (CI 95%: 1.33-1.83) and that improvement in abdominal pain was 1.52 (CI%: 1.28-1.80) [50], which is consistent with the results obtained in this study. However, a previous study showed that the efficiency of joint pinaverium bromide-venlafaxine sustained-release tablets on IBS-D reached 85.02%, which was higher than that seen when using only pinaverium bromide (64.29%) [51]. All of the drugs compared in this study were single drugs, and this study was unable to verify multiple drug efficacies.

This study shows that alosetron has better efficacy than ramosetron, but with many side effects. Previous studies have shown the occurrence of side effects from alosetron in the treatment of IBS-D (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.25) [52], which is consistent with the results of this study. However, most patients included in our study were female patients with severe IBS-D. Alosetron is not used in the treatment of typical IBS-D patients, but for female patients with severe IBS-D, alosetron may be a good choice.

The most frequently used acupuncture points for IBS-D were ST-25, ST-37, ST-36, SP-6, GV-20, and EX-HN3. Studies have reported that the electrical stimulation of rat hind limbs at ST-36 bits can significantly improve colonic hypersensitivity [53]. Research has shown that using electroacupuncture at the ST25 stimulation site can regulate the brain glucose metabolism rates and improve visceral hypersensitivity [54]. Studies have shown that ST25 and ST37 are able to increase the pain threshold in rats with chronic visceral hypersensitivity by reducing 5-HT concentration and increasing 5-HT4R concentration [42]. Doctors choose the patient's acupuncture points based on self-judgement, preferences, and experience. It was very difficult to find consistency in previous studies, which made it difficult to achieve a consistent comparison of results because different acupoints were used. Consistent acupoint studies conducted in the future may be helpful in research or clinical applications.

This study has several advantages and disadvantages. Limitations include the poor quality of some of our studies, the relatively small number of people included, and the fact that some of the studied populations were regional. At the same time, some studies lacked safety records and some results lacked age records, which could have an impact on the results. Meanwhile, the outcome evaluation index used in this study was an overall symptom improvement scale. The drugs used in this study were single drugs. The lack of a combination effect between drugs will have a certain difference from clinical applications.

In summary, this study found that acupuncture may be a good treatment for IBS-D with few side effects, but more research is needed in the future to prove this. Sham acupuncture may be not a good control because of its curative effect for IBS-D. Pinaverium bromide is also a treatment option, as it showed a curative effect with fewer side effects.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Lingping Zhu was responsible for the design of this study. Lingping Zhu and Shasha Ye performed the search of related articles. Yunhui Ma and Zhiqun Shu performed the extraction of data. Lingping Zhu and Yunhui Ma performed the statistical analysis. Lingping Zhu performed the manuscript editing.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary 1. Detailed searching strategy. (Supplementary Materials)

References

  1. R. M. Lovell and A. C. Ford, “Effect of gender on prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 107, no. 7, pp. 991–1000, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. T. Oshima and H. Miwa, “Epidemiology of functional gastrointestinal disorders in Japan and in the world,” Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 320–329, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. D. A. Andrae, D. L. Patrick, D. A. Drossman, and P. S. Covington, “Evaluation of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) questionnaire in diarrheal-predominant irritable bowel syndrome patients,” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, vol. 11, article 208, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. A. Deiteren, A. de Wit, L. van der Linden, J. G. de Man, P. A. Pelckmans, and B. Y. de Winter, “Irritable bowel syndrome and visceral hypersensitivity: Risk factors and patho-physiological mechanisms,” Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 29–38, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  5. W. D. Chey, J. Kurlander, and S. Eswaran, “Irritable bowel syndrome: a clinical review,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 313, no. 9, pp. 949–958, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. B. Hutton, G. Salanti, D. M. Caldwell et al., “The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 162, no. 11, pp. 777–784, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. A. Liberati, D. G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff et al., “The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, Article ID e1000100, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. A. R. Jadad, R. A. Moore, D. Carroll et al., “Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?” Controlled Clinical Trials, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. D. E. Warn, S. G. Thompson, and D. J. Spiegelhalter, “Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: Methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1601–1623, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. D. J. Lunn, A. Thomas, N. Best, and D. Spiegelhalter, “WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility,” Statistics and Computing, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 325–337, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. C. Levy, A. Charbonnier, and M. Cachin, “Pinaverium bromide bromide and functional colonic disease double-blind study,” in Sem Hop Ther, vol. 53, p. 374, 372, 53, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  12. L. Xueqing, M. Shiying, and L. Xin, “Therapeutic Observation of Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome Majorly Treated by Acupuncture with Ling Gui Ba Fa,” Shanghai Journal of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 22–24, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  13. Z. Daowei, S. Jianhua, L. Kaitao, X. Luzhou, Z. Junling, and P. Lixia, “Effects and efficacy observation of acupuncture on serum 5-HT in patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion, vol. 34, no. 2, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  14. K. Su-ping, W. Wen-qin, X. Ning, and T. Qiwen, “Clinical Research of Acupuncture plus Ginger-partitioned Moxibustion for Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome,” Shanghai Journal of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 895–898, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. L. Shu-ying, ““Tiao Shen Jian pi” acupuncture treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Guangxi Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 55–57, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  16. W. Yuan-jian and G. Jie, “30 cases of Acupuncture treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndromef,” Journal of External Therapy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 38-39, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  17. P. Li-xia, S. Jian-hua, X. Chen et al., “Clinical Evaluation of Acupuncture Treating IBS-D Belonging to Liver Depression and Spleen Deficiency Syndrome,” Journal of Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 28, no. 1, p. 601, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. H. Li, P. Lx, Z. Jl, and S. Jian-hua, “Controlled observation on the efficacy of acupuncture and western medicine on diarrhea-type irritable bowel syndrome,” World Journal of Acupuncture-Moxibuation, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 11–16, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. J.-H. Sun, X.-L. Wu, C. Xia et al., “Clinical evaluation of Soothing Gan and invigorating Pi acupuncture treatment on diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 780–785, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. X. Shi, J. Luo, and T. Tan, “Clinical observation of electroacupuncture on diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Journal of New Chinese Medicine, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 72–74, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  21. A. J. Lembo, B. E. Lacy, M. J. Zuckerman et al., “Eluxadoline for Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 374, no. 3, pp. 242–253, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. L. S. Dove, A. Lembo, C. W. Randall et al., “Eluxadoline Benefits Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea in a Phase 2 Study,” Gastroenterology, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 329–338, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. L. Zheng, Y. Lai, W. Lu, B. Li, H. Fan, and Z. Yan, “Pinaverium Reduces Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome in a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 3, no. 7, p. 1285, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  24. J. Delmont, “The value of adding an antispasmodic musculotropic agent in the treatment of painful constipation in functional colopathies with bran. Double-blind study,” Med Chir Dig, vol. 10, pp. 365–370, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  25. L. Chang, V. Z. Ameen, G. E. Dukes, D. J. McSorley, E. G. Carter, and E. A. Mayer, “A dose-ranging, phase II study of the efficacy and safety of alosetron in men with diarrhea-predominant IBS,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 115–123, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. W. D. Chey, W. Y. Chey, A. T. Heath et al., “Long-term safety and efficacy of alosetron in women with severe diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 99, no. 11, pp. 2195–2203, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. A. J. Lembo, K. W. Olden, V. Z. Ameen, S. L. Gordon, A. T. Heath, and E. G. Carter, “Effect of alosetron on bowel urgency and global symptoms in women with severe, diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: Analysis of two controlled trials,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 675–682, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. R. Krause, V. Ameen, S. H. Gordon et al., “A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg and 1 mg alosetron in women with severe diarrhea-predominant IBS,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 102, no. 8, pp. 1709–1719, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. K. J. Lee, N. Y. Kim, J. K. Kwon et al., “Efficacy of ramosetron in the treatment of male patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial, compared with mebeverine,” Neurogastroenterology & Motility, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1098–1104, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. K. Matsueda, S. Harasawa, M. Hongo, N. Hiwatashi, and D. Sasaki, “A phase II trial of the novel serotonin type 3 receptor antagonist ramosetron in Japanese male and female patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Digestion, vol. 77, no. 3-4, pp. 225–235, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. S. Fukudo, K. Matsueda, K. Haruma et al., “Mo1281 Optimal Dose of Ramosetron in Female Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial,” Gastroenterology, vol. 148, no. 4, p. S-659, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. S. Fukudo, Y. Kinoshita, T. Okumura et al., “Effect of ramosetron in female patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea: a phase III long-term study,” Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 874–882, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. K. Matsueda, S. Harasawa, M. Hongo, N. Hiwatashi, and D. Sasaki, “A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the effectiveness of the novel serotonin type 3 receptor antagonist ramosetron in both male and female Japanese patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1202–1211, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. S. Fukudo, M. Ida, H. Akiho, Y. Nakashima, and K. Matsueda, “Effect of Ramosetron on Stool Consistency in Male Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 953-954, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. A. Lembo, S. F. Zakko, N. L. Ferreira et al., “T1390 Rifaximin for the Treatment of Diarrhea-Associated Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Short Term Treatment Leading to Long Term Sustained Response,” Gastroenterology, vol. 134, no. 4, p. A-545, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. M. Pimentel, A. Lembo, W. D. Chey et al., “Rifaximin therapy for patients with irritable bowel syndrome without constipation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 364, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. C. Lowe, A. Aiken, A. G. Day, W. Depew, and S. J. Vanner, “Sham acupuncture is as efficacious as true acupuncture for the treatment of IBS: A randomized placebo controlled trial,” Neurogastroenterology & Motility, vol. 29, no. 7, Article ID e13040, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. C. Lowe, W. T. Depew, and S. J. Vanner, “A placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of acupuncture in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS),” Gastroenterology, vol. 118, no. 4, p. A617, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. A. J. Lembo, L. Conboy, J. M. Kelley et al., “A treatment trial of acupuncture in IBS patients,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 1489–1497, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. A. Forbes, S. Jackson, C. Walter, S. Quraishi, M. Jacyna, and M. Pitcher, “Acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome: a blinded placebo-controlled trial,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 11, no. 26, pp. 4040–4044, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. T. Chiba, K. Sato, Y. Toya et al., “Serial changes in cytokine expression in irritable bowel syndrome patients following treatment with calcium polycarbophil,” Hepato-Gastroenterology, vol. 58, no. 110-111, pp. 1527–1530, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  42. H.-R. Liu, X.-M. Wang, E.-H. Zhou et al., “Acupuncture at both ST25 and ST37 improves the pain threshold of chronic visceral hypersensitivity rats,” Neurochemical Research, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1914–1918, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. J.-H. Sun, X.-L. Wu, Y.-F. Meng et al., “Electro-acupuncture decreases 5-HT, CGRP and increases NPY in the brain-gut axis in two rat models of Diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome(D-IBS),” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 15, article 340, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. H.-G. Wu, B. Jiang, E.-H. Zhou et al., “Regulatory mechanism of electroacupuncture in irritable bowel syndrome: preventing MC activation and decreasing SP VIP secretion,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1644–1651, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. X. P. Ma, L. Y. Tan, Y. Yang et al., “Effect of electro-acupuncture on substance p, its receptor and corticotropin-releasing hormone in rats with irritable bowel syndrome,” World J Gastroenterol, vol. 15, no. 41, pp. 5211–5217, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  46. W. C. W. Chu, J. C. Y. Wu, D. T. W. Yew et al., “Does acupuncture therapy alter activation of neural pathway for pain perception in irritable bowel syndrome?: a comparative study of true and sham acupuncture using functional magnetic resonance imaging,” Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 305–316, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. https://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997Acupuncture107pdf.pdf.
  48. E. Manheimer, L. S. Wieland, K. Cheng et al., “Acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 835–847, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. T. Lundeberg, I. Lund, A. Sing, and J. Näslund, “Is placebo acupuncture what it is intended to be?” Evidence-Based Complementray and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2011, Article ID 932407, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  50. M. A. Martínez-Vázquez, G. Vázquez-Elizondo, J. A. González-González, R. Gutiérrez-Udave, H. J. Maldonado-Garza, and F. J. Bosques-Padilla, “Effect of antispasmodic agents, alone or in combination, in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis,” Revista de Gastroenterología de México, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 82–90, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. The clinical Research Group of Venlafaxine to Treat Irritable Bowel Syndrome, “Randomized, parallel-control and multi-centered research on venlafaxine sustained release table and pinaverium bromide treating patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Chinese Journal of Digestion, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 307–311, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  52. Y. Zheng, T. Yu, Y. Tang, W. Xiong, X. Shen, and L. Jiang, “Efficacy and safety of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists in irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Plos One, vol. 12, no. 3, Article ID e0172846, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  53. W. L. Zhu, L. I. Ying, L. F. Zhang, J. Zhu, J. M. Yang, and X. Y. Shen, “Different effects in ibs model rats by electro-acupuncture of zusanli(st36) and tianshu(st25) on stomach meridian,” Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine & Pharmacy, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 736–738, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  54. C. T. Zuo, X. L. Wang, Y. H. Guan, and H. J. Wu, “Study of brain fdg-pet mapping in patients with d-ibs treated by electrical acupuncture on st25,” Society of Nuclear Medicine Annual Meeting Abstracts. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Lingping Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views2807
Downloads645
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.