The Prophylactic Effect of Acupuncture for Migraine Without Aura: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled, Clinical Trial.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mingsheng Sun, Chaorong Xie, Yanan Wang, Xuguang Yang, Linlin Dong, Taipin Guo, Xiaoqin Chen, Jing Luo, Yutong Zhang, Xixiu Ni, Lu Liu, Jiao Chen, Siyuan Zhou, Ling Zhao
{"title":"The Prophylactic Effect of Acupuncture for Migraine Without Aura: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled, Clinical Trial.","authors":"Mingsheng Sun, Chaorong Xie, Yanan Wang, Xuguang Yang, Linlin Dong, Taipin Guo, Xiaoqin Chen, Jing Luo, Yutong Zhang, Xixiu Ni, Lu Liu, Jiao Chen, Siyuan Zhou, Ling Zhao","doi":"10.1111/jebm.70059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Acupuncture is recognized as an effective migraine treatment, but the comparative long-term efficacy of different acupuncture methods at identical acupoints remains unclear. This study investigates the prophylactic effects of manual acupuncture (manual penetrating acupuncture, MPA) versus sham acupuncture (non-penetrating acupuncture, NPA) at the same acupoints.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter, single-blind randomized controlled trial conducted across four Chinese clinical centers (May 2020 to September 2022), 192 migraineurs without aura (International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition criteria) were randomized 1:1 to 12 sessions of MPA or NPA. Primary outcome was the change from baseline in migraine attack frequency at week 16; secondary outcomes included migraine attack frequency, responder rates, migraine days, and pain intensity (every 4 weeks), etc. Trial registration: No. ChiCTR2000032308.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 198 participants were randomly allocated to either MPA or NPA groups, 99 in each group. At 16 weeks, the change in MPA showed a greater reduction in migraine attacks versus NPA (mean difference [MD] = -0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5 to 0.05; p = 0.069). MPA demonstrated superior responder rates (risk difference = 17.2%, 95% CI 5.2 to 29.1; p = 0.007) and pain reduction (MD = -0.6, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2; p = 0.003) after treatment. At follow-up, MPA improved all migraine symptoms and some quality of life compared with NPA. Adverse events occurred in 5.1% of MPA participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although MPA and NPA showed comparable preventive effects, MPA provided sustained symptom relief and quality-of-life improvements. Therefore, suitable acupoint selection establishes therapeutic potential, whereas acupuncture methods critically determine long-term clinical benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e70059"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.70059","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Acupuncture is recognized as an effective migraine treatment, but the comparative long-term efficacy of different acupuncture methods at identical acupoints remains unclear. This study investigates the prophylactic effects of manual acupuncture (manual penetrating acupuncture, MPA) versus sham acupuncture (non-penetrating acupuncture, NPA) at the same acupoints.

Methods: In this multicenter, single-blind randomized controlled trial conducted across four Chinese clinical centers (May 2020 to September 2022), 192 migraineurs without aura (International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition criteria) were randomized 1:1 to 12 sessions of MPA or NPA. Primary outcome was the change from baseline in migraine attack frequency at week 16; secondary outcomes included migraine attack frequency, responder rates, migraine days, and pain intensity (every 4 weeks), etc. Trial registration: No. ChiCTR2000032308.

Results: A total of 198 participants were randomly allocated to either MPA or NPA groups, 99 in each group. At 16 weeks, the change in MPA showed a greater reduction in migraine attacks versus NPA (mean difference [MD] = -0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5 to 0.05; p = 0.069). MPA demonstrated superior responder rates (risk difference = 17.2%, 95% CI 5.2 to 29.1; p = 0.007) and pain reduction (MD = -0.6, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2; p = 0.003) after treatment. At follow-up, MPA improved all migraine symptoms and some quality of life compared with NPA. Adverse events occurred in 5.1% of MPA participants.

Conclusions: Although MPA and NPA showed comparable preventive effects, MPA provided sustained symptom relief and quality-of-life improvements. Therefore, suitable acupoint selection establishes therapeutic potential, whereas acupuncture methods critically determine long-term clinical benefits.

针刺对无先兆偏头痛的预防作用:一项随机、假对照的临床试验。
目的:针灸被认为是治疗偏头痛的有效方法,但不同针灸方法在同一穴位的长期比较疗效尚不清楚。本研究探讨了同一穴位上的手针(手透针,MPA)与假针(非透针,NPA)的预防作用。方法:在中国4个临床中心(2020年5月至2022年9月)进行的这项多中心、单盲随机对照试验中,192例无先兆偏头痛患者(国际头痛疾病分类第3版标准)被1:1随机分配到MPA或NPA的12个阶段。主要结局是第16周偏头痛发作频率较基线的变化;次要结局包括偏头痛发作频率、应答率、偏头痛天数、疼痛强度(每4周)等。试验报名:No。ChiCTR2000032308。结果:198例受试者随机分为MPA组和NPA组,每组99例。在16周时,与NPA相比,MPA的变化显示偏头痛发作的减少更大(平均差异[MD] = -0.6, 95%可信区间[CI] -1.5至0.05;p = 0.069)。经治疗后,MPA表现出优越的缓解率(风险差异= 17.2%,95% CI 5.2至29.1;p = 0.007)和疼痛减轻(MD = -0.6, 95% CI -1.1至-0.2;p = 0.003)。在随访中,与NPA相比,MPA改善了所有偏头痛症状和一些生活质量。不良事件发生在5.1%的MPA参与者中。结论:尽管MPA和NPA的预防效果相当,但MPA提供持续的症状缓解和生活质量改善。因此,合适的穴位选择确立了治疗潜力,而针灸方法则决定了长期的临床疗效。
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
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.40%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信