OBJECTIVETo summarize and critically assess the effificacy of Eastern and Western manipulative therapies for the treatment of neck pain in adults.

METHODSA search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, etc. from their inception date to January 2014 with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean databases. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with negative control or blank control, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis and levels of evidence were performed by Revman5.1 and Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTSNineteen clinical trials with adequate randomization were included in this review, 11 of them had a low risk of bias. The primary outcome for short-term pain had no significant differences, however, the secondary outcome, only the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score of intermediate-term [n=916, pooled mean differences (MD) =-0.29, P=0.02], the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score of short-term (n=1,145, pooled MD=-2.10, P<0.01), and intermediate-term (n=987, pooled MD=-1.45, P=0.01) were signifificantly reduced with moderate quality evidence. However, it supported the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of the Visual Analogue Scale and NPRS pain score to be 13 mm, while NDI was 3.5 points. The meta-analysis only suggested a trend in favor of manipulative therapy rather than clinical signifificance.

CONCLUSIONSThe results do not support the existing evidences for the clinical value of Eastern or Western manipulative therapy for neck pain of short-term follow-up according to MCIDs. The limitations of our review related to blinding, allocation concealment and small sample size.

In Japan, a re-examination system was introduced in the 1970s, and Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) has been conducted in many cases after the launch of new drugs or the approval of new indications for existing drugs. The revised Good Post-marketing Study Practice (r-GPSP) was enacted in 1 April 2018, and more scientific approach has been required for PMS. The survey aims to identify what kinds of change occurred in the PMS planned after r-GPSP enacted. As for the study method, after confirming the review report of each product, Risk Management Plan (RMP), and the package insert, and extracting necessary items, tabulation and analysis were performed. As a result of analysis, Drug Use Investigations (DUI) still accounted for more than 60％ of the total in PMS. Regarding the target number of DUI, Fifty-eight out of 90 had a sample size of 500 or fewer, only 3 studies exceeded 3,000. Regarding the newly introduced Post-marketing database surveillance (DB study) after r-GPSP enacted, 13 products and 18 surveillances were confirmed, although the number was not as large as the number of DUI. The most used database was Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. (MDV), which were used in twelve DB studies, and cardiovascular disease and interstitial pneumonia were set as survey targets for safety considerations in multiple studies. There was no Drug Use Comparative Investigation. Furthermore, there were two products which were approved on the condition with re-examination period but did not required additional Pharmacovigilance activities. In terms of sample size calculation, 88 out of 135 studies mentioned rationales for setting the number of samples. Of which, 58 studies had statistical rationales. In many studies, the sample size calculation method that was commonly used in conventional PMSs, called ‘Rule of three’ was described as the statistical rational. After r-GPSP enacted, newly introduced Post-marketing surveillance, including DB surveys, and the scientific approach recommended by PMDA have been adopted in companies gradually. In the future, in order to further promote the scientific approach, it is necessary to further improve the capability of human resources of companies involved in PMS.