Is electroacupuncture effective for chronic prostatitis-chronic pelvic pain syndrome as compared to antibiotics and NSAIDs alone?
Date of publication of randomized controlled trial: March 2015
Design
Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Participants
54 male patients (mean age range: 25.5 to 41.1 years) with chronic prostatitis-chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP-CPPS) diagnosed according to National Institutes of Health (NIH) category IIIB. They experienced at least 12 weeks of pelvic pain, and underwent clinical and microbiological tests.
Intervention
Biweekly electroacupuncture treatment for 7 weeks was performed. The acupuncture points were UB28, GB41, LIV3, LI4, SP6 and SP8.
Comparator
Comparison: Electrocupuncture versus control group receiving levofloxacin 500 mg daily and ibuprofen 200 mg twice a day for 6 weeks.
Major Outcomes
Outcome 1: Change in pain score at the end of treatment;
Outcome 2: Change in total National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score at the end of treatment.
Settings
The authors did not state whether the trial was conducted in inpatient or outpatient settings.
Comparison    Electroacupuncture versus antibiotics and NSAIDs
Main Results
In electroacupuncture group, the pain score reduced by -6.65 ± 3.73 and the total NIH-CPSI score by -12.54 ± 4.95. In the antibiotics and NSAIDs group, the pain score reduced by -3.89 ± 2.97 and the total NIH-CPSI score by -6.43 ± 4.95. The mean differences in pain and total NIH-CPSI scores at the end of treatment between the two groups were statistically significant.
Comparison: Electroacupuncture versus antibiotics and NSAIDs for male patients with CP-CPPS
Outcomes (units) No. of studies (Total number of participants) Mean (SD)/ No. of participants Heterogeneity test (I2) MD (95% CI) p value Overall quality of evidence*
Intervention Comparator
1 (NA) 1(54) -6.65 (3.73) / 26 -3.89 (2.97) / 28 Not applicable as there is only 1 trial. Not reported 0.007 Low
2 (NA) 1(54) -12.54 (4.95)/26 -6.43 (4.95)/ 28 Not applicable as there is only 1 trial. Not reported 0.001 Low
Keys: SD: standard deviation; MD: mean difference; CI: confidence interval.
Comparison    Electroacupuncture versus antibiotics and NSAIDs
Main Results
In electroacupuncture group, the pain score reduced by -6.65 ± 3.73 and the total NIH-CPSI score by -12.54 ± 4.95. In the antibiotics and NSAIDs group, the pain score reduced by -3.89 ± 2.97 and the total NIH-CPSI score by -6.43 ± 4.95. The mean differences in pain and total NIH-CPSI scores at the end of treatment between the two groups were statistically significant.
Comparison: Electroacupuncture versus antibiotics and NSAIDs for male patients with CP-CPPS
Outcomes (units) 1 (NA) 2 (NA)
No. of studies (Total number of participants) 1(54) 1(54)
Mean (SD)/ No. of participants Intervention -6.65 (3.73) / 26 -12.54 (4.95)/26
Comparator -3.89 (2.97) / 28 -6.43 (4.95)/ 28
MD (95% CI) Not reported Not reported
p value 0.007 0.001
Overall quality of evidence* Low Low
Keys: SD: standard deviation; MD: mean difference; CI: confidence interval.
Conclusion
Benefits
This study showed that electroacupuncture may significantly reduce pain and total NIH-CPSI scores when compared to antibiotics and NSAIDs. For all outcomes, the overall quality of evidence is low. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
Harms
No adverse events were reported in both electroacupuncture and antibiotics and NSAIDs groups.
Link to Original Article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25582816
The synopsis is based on the following article:
Küçük EV, Suçeken FY, Bindayı A, Boylu U, Onol FF, Gümüş E. Effectiveness of Acupuncture on Chronic Prostatitis–Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome Category IIIB Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Nonblinded, Clinical Trial. Urology. 2015 Mar 31;85(3):636-40.


* Interpretation of quality assessment results:
• Very low: Further research is most likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
• Low: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
• Moderate: Further research is fairly likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
• High: Further research is unlikely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
• Very high: Further research is most unlikely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.

Details of assessment method can be found at Chung VC, Wu XY, Ziea ET, Ng BF, Wong SY, Wu JC. Assessing internal validity of clinical evidence on effectiveness of CHinese and integrative medicine: Proposed framework for a CHinese and Integrative Medicine Evidence RAting System (CHIMERAS). European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2015 Aug 31;7(4):332-41.