Kaplan: acupuncture no use in hypertension again!

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

Early in Jan 2005 we discussed a very poor trial on acupuncture in

hypertension in which a Dr Norman Kaplan (who has no publications of

worth in any aspect of acupuncture - see: http://tinyurl.com/u5low ) was an

author.

 

Having received a copy of the original report from Sean Walsh, it was my

opinion that no reputable peer-reviewed journal would accept that paper. It

seems that the journals agreed with that opinion. Kaplan himself wrote [

Acupuncture for Hypertension?: Can 2500 Years Come to an End

Kaplan, Norman M. http://www.saha.org.ar/articulos/acupuncture.htm ]

" With only a fraction of the money and personnel used in the SHARP trial,

we tried such a study but, not surprising, in retrospect, we failed, producing

only an abstract 2 that, as a manuscript, could never find a place in a

reputable journal. " .

 

However, Kaplan persists in his attempt to discredit AP as a therapy for

hypertension. See the article, above and http://tinyurl.com/u5low

Unfortunately, he can now cite the results of a much larger trial (Macklin et

al (abstract below) to support his thesis:

 

Macklin EA, Wayne PM, Kalish LA, Valaskatgis P, Thompson J, Pian-Smith

MCM, Zhang Q, Stevens S, Goertz C, Prineas RJ, Buczynski B, Zusman

RM. Stop Hypertension with the Acupuncture Research Program (SHARP):

results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Hypertension.

2006;48:838-845. Abstract : Case studies and small trials suggest that

acupuncture may effectively treat hypertension, but no large randomized

trials have been reported. The Stop Hypertension with the Acupuncture

Research Program pilot trial enrolled 192 participants with untreated blood

pressure (BP) in the range of 140/90 to 179/109 mm Hg. The design of the

trial combined rigorous methodology and adherence to principles of

traditional Chinese medicine. Participants were weaned off

antihypertensives before enrollment and were then randomly assigned to 3

treatments: individualized traditional Chinese acupuncture, standardized

acupuncture at preselected points, or invasive sham acupuncture.

Participants received <=12 acupuncture treatments over 6 to 8 weeks.

During the first 10 weeks after random assignment, BP was monitored

every 14 days, and antihypertensives were prescribed if BP exceeded

180/110 mm Hg. The mean BP decrease from baseline to 10 weeks, the

primary end point, did not differ significantly between participants randomly

assigned to active (individualized and standardized) versus sham

acupuncture (systolic BP: -3.56 versus -3.84 mm Hg, respectively; 95% CI

for the difference: -4.0 to 4.6 mm Hg; P=0.90; diastolic BP: -4.32 versus -

2.81 mm Hg, 95% CI for the difference: -3.6 to 0.6 mm Hg; P=0.16).

Categorizing participants by age, race, gender, baseline BP, history of

antihypertensive use, obesity, or primary traditional Chinese medicine

diagnosis did not reveal any subgroups for which the benefits of active

acupuncture differed significantly from sham acupuncture. Active

acupuncture provided no greater benefit than invasive sham acupuncture in

reducing systolic or diastolic BP.

 

No doubt the Quackbuster lobby will hail Kaplan as an expert in

acupuncture who now believes it is worthless in hypertension.

 

Back to the bunker again!

 

Best regards,