Acunpuncture needles out low back pain



| | | Bookmark and Share



October 2, 2007  
Filed under Uncategorized



Science Daily – Six months of acupuncture treatment appears to be more effective than conventional therapy in treating low back pain, according to a study in the Sept. 24 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals, although the study suggests that both sham acupuncture and traditional Chinese verum acupuncture appear to be effective in treating low back pain.

“Low back pain is a common, impairing and disabling condition, often long-term, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 70 percent to 85 percent,” the authors write as background information in the article. “It is the second most common pain for which physician treatment is sought and a major reason for absenteeism and disability.” Acupuncture is increasingly used as an alternative therapy, but its value as a treatment for low back pain is still controversial.

Michael Haake, Ph.D., M.D., of the University of Regensburg, Bad Abbach, Germany, and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical trial involving 1,162 patients (average age 50) who had experienced chronic low back pain for an average of eight years.

Patients underwent ten 30-minute sessions (approximately two sessions per week) of verum acupuncture (387 patients), sham acupuncture (387 patients) or conventional therapy (388 patients). Verum acupunture consisted of needling fixed points and additional points to a depth of 5 millimeters to 40 millimeters based on traditional Chinese medicine, while sham acupuncture consisted of inserting needles superficially (1 millimeter to 3 millimeters) into the lower back avoiding all known verum points or meridians.

Conventional therapy consisted of a combination of medication, physical therapy and exercise. Five additional sessions were offered to those who had a partial response to treatment (10% to 50% pain reduction).

“A total of 13,475 treatment sessions were conducted (verum acupuncture, 4,821; sham acupuncture, 4,590; conventional therapy, 4,064),” the authors write. Patients receiving the additional five sessions were 232 (59.9%) in the verum group, 209 (54.3%) in the sham group and 192 (52.5%) in the conventional group.

Response rate was defined as a 33% improvement in pain or a 12 percent improvement in functional ability. “At six months, response rate was 47.6% in the verum acupuncture group, 44.2% in the sham acupuncture group and 27.4% in the conventional therapy group,” the authors note. “Differences among groups were as follows: verum vs. sham, 3.4%; verum vs. conventional therapy, 20.2%; and sham vs. conventional therapy, 16.8%.”

“The superiority of both forms of acupuncture suggests a common underlying mechanism that may act on pain generation, transmission of pain signals or processing of pain signals by the central nervous system and that is stronger than the action mechanism of conventional therapy,” the authors conclude. “Acupuncture gives physicians a promising and effective treatment option for chronic low back pain, with few adverse effects or contraindications. The improvements in all primary and secondary outcome measures were significant and lasted long after completion of treatment.”

[Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(17):1892-1898]