Efficacy of alpha-lipoic acid in patients with burning mouth syndrome compared to that of placebo or other interventions: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

Jessica Christy, Salman Noorani, Frank Sy, Kamal Al-Eryani, Reyes Enciso
{"title":"Efficacy of alpha-lipoic acid in patients with burning mouth syndrome compared to that of placebo or other interventions: a systematic review with meta-analyses.","authors":"Jessica Christy,&nbsp;Salman Noorani,&nbsp;Frank Sy,&nbsp;Kamal Al-Eryani,&nbsp;Reyes Enciso","doi":"10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic oral disorder of unknown etiology which presents therapeutic challenges. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) has been studied as a potential treatment for BMS. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of ALA compared to that of placebo or other interventions in individuals with BMS. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) using ALA to treat BMS were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to February 3, 2021. The assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies was based on the Cochrane guidelines. The primary outcome evaluated was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity. ALA was compared with placebo, clonazepam, gabapentin, pregabalin, ALA plus gabapentin, capsaicin, Biotène<sup>®</sup>, and laser therapy. Altogether, 137 records were scanned for inclusion/exclusion, and nine RCTs (two unclear and seven at high risk of bias) were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, with a total of 594 patients with BMS included in this review. All studies reported an improvement in VAS pain scores ranging from -0.72 to -2.77. Meta-analysis results showed a non-significant reduction in pain intensity for ALA (P = 0.616) compared to that of placebo on a VAS of 0-10. Patients taking ALA were 1.923 times more likely to show an improvement in self-reported BMS symptoms (P = 0.031) than those in the placebo group. Clonazepam and pregabalin showed a significant VAS pain reduction of 4.08 and 4.68 (P < 0.001), respectively, compared to that with ALA. Although ALA intervention provided a non-significant improvement in the pain score and was more likely to produce a reduction in BMS symptoms, the evidence was of low quality. Further research is needed to establish clear guidelines for the use of ALA for BMS treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":15634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"323-338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/42/5b/jdapm-22-323.PMC9536947.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic oral disorder of unknown etiology which presents therapeutic challenges. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) has been studied as a potential treatment for BMS. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of ALA compared to that of placebo or other interventions in individuals with BMS. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) using ALA to treat BMS were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to February 3, 2021. The assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies was based on the Cochrane guidelines. The primary outcome evaluated was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity. ALA was compared with placebo, clonazepam, gabapentin, pregabalin, ALA plus gabapentin, capsaicin, Biotène®, and laser therapy. Altogether, 137 records were scanned for inclusion/exclusion, and nine RCTs (two unclear and seven at high risk of bias) were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, with a total of 594 patients with BMS included in this review. All studies reported an improvement in VAS pain scores ranging from -0.72 to -2.77. Meta-analysis results showed a non-significant reduction in pain intensity for ALA (P = 0.616) compared to that of placebo on a VAS of 0-10. Patients taking ALA were 1.923 times more likely to show an improvement in self-reported BMS symptoms (P = 0.031) than those in the placebo group. Clonazepam and pregabalin showed a significant VAS pain reduction of 4.08 and 4.68 (P < 0.001), respectively, compared to that with ALA. Although ALA intervention provided a non-significant improvement in the pain score and was more likely to produce a reduction in BMS symptoms, the evidence was of low quality. Further research is needed to establish clear guidelines for the use of ALA for BMS treatment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

与安慰剂或其他干预措施相比,α -硫辛酸对灼口综合征患者的疗效:一项荟萃分析的系统评价。
灼口综合征(BMS)是一种病因不明的慢性口腔疾病,给治疗带来了挑战。α -硫辛酸(ALA)已被研究作为BMS的潜在治疗方法。本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是评估ALA与安慰剂或其他干预措施在BMS患者中的有效性。使用ALA治疗BMS的随机对照试验(RCT)从MEDLINE、Cochrane Library、EMBASE和Web of Science中确定,截止到2021年2月3日。纳入研究的偏倚风险评估基于Cochrane指南。主要评价指标为视觉模拟评分(VAS)疼痛强度。将ALA与安慰剂、氯硝西泮、加巴喷丁、普瑞巴林、ALA +加巴喷丁、辣椒素、biot®和激光治疗进行比较。总共扫描137条记录进行纳入/排除,定性和定量分析包括9项随机对照试验(2项不明确,7项高偏倚风险),本综述共纳入594例BMS患者。所有研究都报告了VAS疼痛评分的改善,范围从-0.72到-2.77。meta分析结果显示,与安慰剂组相比,ALA组疼痛强度无显著降低(P = 0.616), VAS评分为0-10。服用ALA的患者自我报告BMS症状改善的可能性是安慰剂组的1.923倍(P = 0.031)。氯硝西泮和普瑞巴林较ALA组VAS疼痛分别降低4.08和4.68分(P < 0.001)。尽管ALA干预对疼痛评分没有显著改善,而且更有可能减轻BMS症状,但证据质量很低。需要进一步的研究来建立ALA用于BMS治疗的明确指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信