Acupuncture as prophylaxis for menstrual-related migraine: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Research Hotspots and Trends on Acupuncture for Neuropathic Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2002 to 2021

Purpose

In this study, we aimed to systematically determine the trend, research hotspots, and directions of the future development of acupuncture for neuropathic pain (NP) by bibliometric analysis.

Methods

Based on the relevant literature on acupuncture for NP in the databases of Web of Science from January 2002 to December 2021, Citespace software and VOSviewer were used to determine the use of acupuncture for the treatment of NP. The annual publications, countries, authors, research institutions, keywords, co-cited references, and journals were analyzed to explore the research hotspot and development trends in this field.

Results

A total of 1462 records of acupuncture for NP from 2002 to 2021 were obtained. Chingliang Hsieh (20) is the most effective author and Han JS (585 co-citations) is the most influential author. The most productive institutions and countries are Kyung Hee UNIV (88) and China, respectively (480). UNIV Maryland of the USA has the highest centrality (0.12). Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (89) is the most prolific journal, and Pain is the most influential journal (4200 co-citations). Ji-sheng Han (2003) is the most frequently cited article (158 co-citations). Electroacupuncture, bee-venom acupuncture, and percutaneous electrical stimulation are the most commonly studied acupuncture types. The analgesic mechanism of acupuncture and acupuncture-neuroimaging was a research hotspot over the years. The clinical evidence of acupuncture for NP should be further studied in the future.

Conclusion

The study using bibliometric analysis methods to investigate the publications on acupuncture for NP so as to provide potential research directions in the future.

Acupuncture for menstruation-related migraine prophylaxis: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture, an alternative medicine therapy, as a preventive treatment for menstruation-related migraine (MRM).

Patients and methods

This was a prospective, multicenter, double-dummy, participant-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in China between 1 April 2013, and 30 April 2014. The participants were enrolled from four study centers and randomized to into either the acupuncture group, which received 24 sessions of acupuncture at traditional acupoints plus placebo, or the medication group, which received sham acupuncture plus naproxen. The primary endpoint was change from the baseline average number of migraine days per perimenstrual period over cycles 1−3. The secondary endpoints included changes from the baseline average number of migraine days outside the perimenstrual period, mean number of migraine hours during and outside the perimenstrual period, mean visual analog scale score during and outside the perimenstrual period, ≥50% migraine responder rate, and the proportion of participants who used acute pain medication over cycles 1−3 and 4−6.

Results

A total of 172 women with MRM were enrolled; 170 in the intention-to-treat analyses. Our primary outcome reported a significant between-group difference that favored the acupuncture group (95% CI, 0.17–0.50; P < 0.001), with the average reduction of migraine days per perimenstrual period from the baseline was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.82–1.07) in the acupuncture group and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50–0.71) in the medication group over cycles 1−3.

Conclusion

This study showed that compared to medication, acupuncture reduces the number of migraine days experienced by patients with MRM. For patients who received the acupuncture treatment over three cycles, the preventive effect of the therapy was sustained for six cycles.

Clinical trial registration

[https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN57133712], identifier [ISRCTN15663606].

Acupuncture for menstrual migraine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In clinical practice, the evidence of acupuncture used as a treatment for migraine without aura is employed interchangeably to guide treatment for menstrual migraine. However, its effect and safety are not substantiated. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of acupuncture on the frequency and pain intensity of menstrual migraine.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and other two Chinese databases from their inception to 1 May 2019. This study included randomised controlled trials of women with menstrual migraine receiving acupuncture or a valid control. Two reviewers independently completed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We combined data with a fixed-effect model in RevMan. Clinical outcomes included migraine frequency and duration, headache intensity, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 826 subjects were included, 9 of which had data suitable for meta-analyses. Current evidence showed that acupuncture was not superior to sham acupuncture in reducing monthly migraine frequency and duration, average headache intensity, and analgesic use at completion of treatment or follow-up. Pooled data demonstrated a significant improvement in mean headache intensity in the acupuncture group compared with drugs. However, all studies were underpowered and associated with moderate to high risk of bias. No serious adverse event was related to acupuncture treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no convincing evidence to support the use of acupuncture in treating menstrual migraine. Acupuncture cannot yet be recommended to patients with menstrual migraine until more solid evidence is produced.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019119337.

Acupuncture for the prevention of episodic migraine

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture is often used for migraine prevention but its effectiveness is still controversial. We present an update of our Cochrane review from 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether acupuncture is a) more effective than no prophylactic treatment/routine care only; b) more effective than sham (placebo) acupuncture; and c) as effective as prophylactic treatment with drugs in reducing headache frequency in adults with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: 2016, issue 1); MEDLINE (via Ovid, 2008 to January 2016); Ovid EMBASE (2008 to January 2016); and Ovid AMED (1985 to January 2016). We checked PubMed for recent publications to April 2016. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform to February 2016 for ongoing and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials at least eight weeks in duration that compared an acupuncture intervention with a no-acupuncture control (no prophylactic treatment or routine care only), a sham-acupuncture intervention, or prophylactic drug in participants with episodic migraine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers checked eligibility; extracted information on participants, interventions, methods and results, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the acupuncture intervention. The primary outcome was migraine frequency (preferably migraine days, attacks or headache days if migraine days not measured/reported) after treatment and at follow-up. The secondary outcome was response (at least 50% frequency reduction). Safety outcomes were number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects and number of participants reporting at least one adverse effect. We calculated pooled effect size estimates using a fixed-effect model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials including 4985 participants in total (median 71, range 30 to 1715) met our updated selection criteria. We excluded five previously included trials from this update because they included people who had had migraine for less than 12 months, and included five new trials. Five trials had a no-acupuncture control group (either treatment of attacks only or non-regulated routine care), 15 a sham-acupuncture control group, and five a comparator group receiving prophylactic drug treatment. In comparisons with no-acupuncture control groups and groups receiving prophylactic drug treatment, there was risk of performance and detection bias as blinding was not possible. Overall the quality of the evidence was moderate. Comparison with no acupunctureAcupuncture was associated with a moderate reduction of headache frequency over no acupuncture after treatment (four trials, 2199 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.56; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.48); findings were statistically heterogeneous (I² = 57%; moderate quality evidence). After treatment headache frequency at least halved in 41% of participants receiving acupuncture and 17% receiving no acupuncture (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.40; 95% CI 2.08 to 2.76; 4 studies, 2519 participants) with a corresponding number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6); there was no indication of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 7%; moderate quality evidence). The only trial with post-treatment follow-up found a small but significant benefit 12 months after randomisation (RR 2.16; 95% CI 1.35 to 3.45; NNT 7; 95% 4 to 25; 377 participants, low quality evidence). Comparison with sham acupunctureBoth after treatment (12 trials, 1646 participants) and at follow-up (10 trials, 1534 participants), acupuncture was associated with a small but statistically significant frequency reduction over sham (moderate quality evidence). The SMD was -0.18 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.08; I² = 47%) after treatment and -0.19 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.09; I² = 59%) at follow-up. After treatment headache frequency at least halved in 50% of participants receiving true acupuncture and 41% receiving sham acupuncture (pooled RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.36; I² = 48%; 14 trials, 1825 participants) and at follow-up in 53% and 42%, respectively (pooled RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; I² = 61%; 11 trials, 1683 participants; moderate quality evidence). The corresponding NNTBs are 11 (95% CI 7.00 to 20.00) and 10 (95% CI 6.00 to 18.00), respectively. The number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 2.84; 95% CI 0.43 to 18.71; 7 trials, 931 participants; low quality evidence) and the number of participants reporting adverse effects (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56; 4 trials, 1414 participants; moderate quality evidence) did not differ significantly between acupuncture and sham groups. Comparison with prophylactic drug treatmentAcupuncture reduced migraine frequency significantly more than drug prophylaxis after treatment ( SMD -0.25; 95% CI -0.39 to -0.10; 3 trials, 739 participants), but the significance was not maintained at follow-up (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.01; 3 trials, 744 participants; moderate quality evidence). After three months headache frequency at least halved in 57% of participants receiving acupuncture and 46% receiving prophylactic drugs (pooled RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44) and after six months in 59% and 54%, respectively (pooled RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.26; moderate quality evidence). Findings were consistent among trials with I² being 0% in all analyses. Trial participants receiving acupuncture were less likely to drop out due to adverse effects (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.86; 4 trials, 451 participants) and to report adverse effects (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 5 trials 931 participants) than participants receiving prophylactic drugs (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that adding acupuncture to symptomatic treatment of attacks reduces the frequency of headaches. Contrary to the previous findings, the updated evidence also suggests that there is an effect over sham, but this effect is small. The available trials also suggest that acupuncture may be at least similarly effective as treatment with prophylactic drugs. Acupuncture can be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment. As for other migraine treatments, long-term studies, more than one year in duration, are lacking.