Article

Efficacy of acupuncture for the prophylaxis of migraine: a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial.

Department of Neurology, University Essen, Essen, Germany.
The Lancet Neurology (Impact Factor: 21.82). 04/2006; 5(4):310-6. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70382-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our aim was to assess the efficacy of a part-standardised verum acupuncture procedure, in accordance with the rules of traditional Chinese medicine, compared with that of part-standardised sham acupuncture and standard migraine prophylaxis with beta blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or antiepileptic drugs in the reduction of migraine days 26 weeks after the start of treatment.
This study was a prospective, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled, clinical trial, undertaken between April 2002 and July 2005. Patients who had two to six migraine attacks per month were randomly assigned verum acupuncture (n=313), sham acupuncture (n=339), or standard therapy (n=308). Patients received ten sessions of acupuncture treatment in 6 weeks or continuous prophylaxis with drugs. Primary outcome was the difference in migraine days between 4 weeks before randomisation and weeks 23-26 after randomisation. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN52683557.
Of 1295 patients screened, 960 were randomly assigned to a treatment group. Immediately after randomisation, 125 patients (106 from the standard group) withdrew their consent to study participation. 794 patients were analysed in the intention-to-treat popoulation and 443 in the per-protocol population. The primary outcome showed a mean reduction of 2 .3 days (95% CI 1.9-2.7) in the verum acupuncture group, 1.5 days (1.1-2.0) in the sham acupuncture group, and 2.1 days (1.5-2.7) in the standard therapy group. These differences were statistically significant compared with baseline (p<0.0001), but not across the treatment groups (p=0.09). The proportion of responders, defined as patients with a reduction of migraine days by at least 50%, 26 weeks after randomisation, was 47% in the verum group, 39% in the sham acupuncture group, and 40% in the standard group (p=0.133).
Treatment outcomes for migraine do not differ between patients treated with sham acupuncture, verum acupuncture, or standard therapy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Kai Kronfeld, Jul 06, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
313 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Academic Editor: Zhaoxiang Bian Copyright © 2013 Suzanne J. Grant 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. Background. Achieving reproducibility in research design is challenging when patient cohorts under study are inconsistently defined. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) diagnosis is one example where inconsistency between practitioners has been found. We hypothesise that the use of a validated instrument may improve consistency. Biochemical biomarkers may also be used enhance reliability. Methods. Twenty-seven participants with prediabetes were assessed by two TCM practitioners using a validated instrument (TEAMSI-TCM). Inter-rater reliability was summarised using percentage agreement and the kappa coefficient. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were used to test links between TCM diagnosis and biomarkers. Results. The two practitioners agreed on primary diagnosis of 70% of participants. kappa = 0.56 (íµí±ƒ < 0.001). The three predominant TCM diagnostic patterns for people with prediabetes were Yin deficiency, Qi and Yin deficiency and Spleen qi deficiency. The Spleen Qi deficiency with Damp cohort had statistically significant higher fasting glucose, higher insulin, higher insulin resistance, higher HbA1c and lower HDL than those with Qi and Yin deficiency. Conclusions. Using the TEAMSI-TCM resulted in moderate interrater reliability between TCM practitioners. This study provides initial evidence of variation in the biomarkers of people with prediabetes according to the different TCM patterns which may suggest a route to further improving interrater reliability.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acupuncture textbooks, schools, practitioners and clinical researchers designing randomized controlled trials on acupuncture all assume that acupuncture points are small and must be located precisely. Seventy-one medical doctors with ≥200 h acupuncture training and ≥2 years of clinical experience independently identified 23 commonly used acupuncture points on a male volunteer, using sticky transparent films with an X/Y grid placed asymmetrically around acupuncture points. For each acupuncture point, the field covering 95% (68%) of all point locations varied from 2.7 (0.7) cm(2) for PC-6 up to 41.4 (10.2) cm(2) for ST-38. Commonly-used acupuncture points showed unexpectedly large variance in location: 95% (or 68%) areas were SP-6: 12.2 cm(2) (3.0 cm(2) ), ST-36: 20.7 cm(2) (5.1 cm(2) ), LI-15: 18.7 cm(2) (4.6 cm(2) ), BL-23: 22.4 cm(2) (5.6 cm(2) ) and BL-54: 22.5 cm(2) (5.6 cm(2) ). Points close to anatomical landmarks (forearm, ankle, poplitea; BL-60, BL-40, TW-5, PC-6) were located with less variance. Precision of point location was independent of length of acupuncture experience, kind of training or medical specialty. In respect to the high degree of variation in the localization of acupuncture points, we suggest that the term 'acupuncture field' is more appropriate than 'acupuncture points' to describe the clinical reality; for the design of sham-controlled acupuncture trials, we recommend a minimum distance of 6 cm between verum and sham points on face, hands and feet, and up to 12 cm for all other parts of the body.
    European journal of pain (London, England) 10/2012; 16(9):1264-70. DOI:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00145.x · 3.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Placebos are an essential tool in randomised clinical trials, where they are used to control for bias and contextual healing effects. Placebos and their effects are also studied from multiple diverse perspectives, but the perspectives of placebo recipients are seldom considered. Research shows that people form cognitive and affective representations of active treatments such as medicines, and that they use these representations to guide their behaviour; it seems reasonable to suggest that people might also think about and develop representations of placebos. We adopted a qualitative approach to examine in detail how participants in one RCT, conducted in the USA, conceptualised placebos. 12 people were interviewed 3 times each, at the start, middle, and end of a trial of placebo effects and acupuncture for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). The interview data were analysed inductively and we identified four ways in which the participants conceptualised placebos: placebos are necessary for research; placebo effects are fake; placebo acupuncture is not real acupuncture; placebos have real effects mediated by psychological mechanisms. Participants' conceptualisations of placebos were dynamic and situated in a broader psychological and socio-cultural context. Seeing placebo effects as legitimate seemed to be facilitated by having more holistic models of healing, viewing IBS as psychological, and seeing treatment as multifactorial. However, some participants maintained a negative view of placebo effects (e.g. as illusions) that was apparently inconsistent with their other beliefs (e.g. in mind-body healing mechanisms). This may indicate a dominance of negative discourses around placebos at a socio-cultural level. Negative views of placebos are inconsistent with evidence that placebo treatments can have positive effects on symptoms. RCT participants should be informed about potential benefits of placebo treatments to avoid misunderstandings and unease. Future work should improve methods of providing participants with full accurate information about placebos and their effects.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 03/2012; 74(5):767-74. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.020 · 2.56 Impact Factor