AP migraine study

[Guest guest]

Does anyone have access to this study?

Although there is a difference between verum and sham AP, the difference is

not statistically significant (P=0.09). Was there any pattern

identificication?

 

 

Lancet Neurol. 2006 Apr;5(4):310-6.

 

 

 

Efficacy of acupuncture for the prophylaxis of migraine: a multicentre

randomised controlled clinical trial.

 

Diener HC, Kronfeld K, Boewing G, Lungenhausen M, Maier C, Molsberger A,

Tegenthoff M, Trampisch HJ, Zenz M, Meinert R; for the GERAC Migraine Study

Group.

 

Department of Neurology, University Essen, Essen, Germany.

 

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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). INTERPRETATION: Treatment outcomes for migraine do not differ between

patients treated with sham acupuncture, verum acupuncture, or standard

therapy.

 

PMID: 16545747 [PubMed - in process]

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Was the P value .09? I thought i was more like .0001, which is much

different, in fact though i didn't do the numbers (as i don't have the

full text either) it looked to me as though there was significance. I

also find it interesting how it is assumed by these researchers (not

LA.c's) that only that those points specifically on the channels have

therapeutic effect, in TCM alone there are hundreds of extra points but

that there is a lack of fundamentals to define parameters for " sham

points " . Lastly, i have issues with studies that use different clinics

in their assessment, it's hard to imagine physical therapy, or

chiropractic studies done in this way (though i'm honestly not certain

that that's not the case), it appears sloppy and poorly designed.

Tymothy

 

 

AP migraine study

 

Does anyone have access to this study?

Although there is a difference between verum and sham AP, the difference

is

not statistically significant (P=0.09). Was there any pattern

identificication?

" We are able to be of service to those who suffer only to the extent that we

have been able to transform fear in our own lives. "

Robert Sardello

 

--

http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different…

[Guest guest]

At 08:43 PM 3/26/2006, you wrote:

>Was the P value .09? I thought i was more like .0001, which is much

>different, in fact though i didn't do the numbers (as i don't have the

>full text either) it looked to me as though there was significance. I

>also find it interesting how it is assumed by these researchers (not

>LA.c's) that only that those points specifically on the channels have

>therapeutic effect, in TCM alone there are hundreds of extra points but

>that there is a lack of fundamentals to define parameters for " sham

>points " . Lastly, i have issues with studies that use different clinics

>in their assessment, it's hard to imagine physical therapy, or

>chiropractic studies done in this way (though i'm honestly not certain

>that that's not the case), it appears sloppy and poorly designed.

>Tymothy

>

 

 

Here's the abstract (one's got to pay or to get to the full text)

 

Efficacy of acupuncture for the prophylaxis of migraine: a

multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial.

 

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Diener+HC%22%5BAuthor%5D>Diener

HC,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Kronfeld+K%22%5BAuthor%5D>Kronfeld

K,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Boewing+G%22%5BAuthor%5D>Boewing

G,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Lungenhausen+M%22%5BAuthor%5D>Lungenhausen

M,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Maier+C%22%5BAuthor%5D>Maier

C,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Molsberger+A%22%5BAuthor%5D>Molsberger

A,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Tegenthoff+M%22%5BAuthor%5D>Tegenthoff

M,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Trampisch+HJ%22%5BAuthor%5D>Trampisch

HJ,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Zenz+M%22%5BAuthor%5D>Zenz

M,

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22Meinert+R%22%5BAuthor%5D>Meinert

R;

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22for+the+GERAC+Migraine+Study+Group%22%5BCorporate+Author%5D>fo\

r

the GERAC Migraine Study Group.

 

Department of Neurology, University Essen, Essen, Germany.

 

BACKGROUND: 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.

METHODS: 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.

FINDINGS: 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). INTERPRETATION: Treatment outcomes for

migraine do not differ between patients treated with sham

acupuncture, verum acupuncture, or standard therapy.

 

 

[Guest guest]

----

 

Tymothy

03/27/06 06:44:22

Chinese Medicine

Re: AP migraine study

 

Was the P value .09? I thought i was more like .0001

 

>>>The difference between verum and sham acupuncture was not statisctically

significant (p=0.09); the difference between the acupuncture groups' outcome

and the baseline was very significant (p<0.0001).

 

Tom.