Scharf Hanns-Peter, Mansmann Ulrich, Streitberger Konrad, Witte Steffen, Krämer Jürgen, Maier Christoph, Trampisch Hans-Joachim, Victor Norbert
University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Jul 4;145(1):12-20. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-1-200607040-00005.
Despite the popularity of acupuncture, evidence of its efficacy for reducing pain remains equivocal.
To assess the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese acupuncture (TCA) compared with sham acupuncture (needling at defined nonacupuncture points) and conservative therapy in patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee.
Randomized, controlled trial.
315 primary care practices staffed by 320 practitioners with at least 2 years' experience in acupuncture.
1007 patients who had had chronic pain for at least 6 months due to osteoarthritis of the knee (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] criteria and Kellgren-Lawrence score of 2 or 3).
Up to 6 physiotherapy sessions and as-needed anti-inflammatory drugs plus 10 sessions of TCA, 10 sessions of sham acupuncture, or 10 physician visits within 6 weeks. Patients could request up to 5 additional sessions or visits if the initial treatment was viewed as being partially successful.
Success rate, as defined by at least 36% improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 26 weeks. Additional end points were WOMAC score and global patient assessment.
Success rates were 53.1% for TCA, 51.0% for sham acupuncture, and 29.1% for conservative therapy. Acupuncture groups had higher success rates than conservative therapy groups (relative risk for TCA compared with conservative therapy, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.13]; relative risk for sham acupuncture compared with conservative therapy, 1.73 [CI, 1.42 to 2.11]). There was no difference between TCA and sham acupuncture (relative risk, 1.01 [CI, 0.87 to 1.17]).
There was no blinding between acupuncture and traditional therapy and no monitoring of acupuncture compliance with study protocol. In general, practitioner-patient contacts were less intense in the conservative therapy group than in the TCA and sham acupuncture groups.
Compared with physiotherapy and as-needed anti-inflammatory drugs, addition of either TCA or sham acupuncture led to greater improvement in WOMAC score at 26 weeks. No statistically significant difference was observed between TCA and sham acupuncture, suggesting that the observed differences could be due to placebo effects, differences in intensity of provider contact, or a physiologic effect of needling regardless of whether it is done according to TCA principles.
尽管针灸很受欢迎,但其减轻疼痛的疗效证据仍不明确。
评估传统中医针灸(TCA)与假针灸(在规定的非穴位处进针)及保守治疗相比,对膝骨关节炎慢性疼痛患者的疗效和安全性。
随机对照试验。
315家初级保健机构,由320名有至少2年针灸经验的从业者提供服务。
1007例因膝骨关节炎(美国风湿病学会[ACR]标准,Kellgren-Lawrence评分为2或3)而有慢性疼痛至少6个月的患者。
6次以内的物理治疗和必要时使用的抗炎药物,外加6周内10次TCA治疗、10次假针灸治疗或10次医生诊疗。如果患者认为初始治疗部分成功,可额外要求最多5次治疗或诊疗。
以26周时西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)评分至少提高36%来定义成功率。其他终点指标为WOMAC评分和患者整体评估。
TCA组成功率为53.1%,假针灸组为51.0%,保守治疗组为29.1%。针灸组的成功率高于保守治疗组(TCA组与保守治疗组相比的相对风险为1.75[95%CI,1.43至2.13];假针灸组与保守治疗组相比的相对风险为1.73[CI,1.42至2.11])。TCA组与假针灸组之间无差异(相对风险为1.01[CI,0.87至1.17])。
针灸与传统治疗之间未设盲法,且未监测针灸是否符合研究方案。总体而言,保守治疗组中医生与患者的接触强度低于TCA组和假针灸组。
与物理治疗和必要时使用的抗炎药物相比,添加TCA或假针灸在26周时能使WOMAC评分有更大改善。TCA组与假针灸组之间未观察到统计学上的显著差异,这表明观察到的差异可能是由于安慰剂效应、医疗服务提供者接触强度的差异或针刺的生理效应,而无论是否按照TCA原则进行针刺。