Luo H, Du P, Qin W, Hu Y, Xian Z, Lin C, Li P, Song Y, Yang X. Intradermal acupuncture in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with
liver and kidney deficiency syndrome - A sham-controlled, randomized, clinical trial.
Complement Ther Med 2024;
82:103037. [PMID:
38582376 DOI:
10.1016/j.ctim.2024.103037]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2023] [Revised: 02/19/2024] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/08/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is called "immortal cancer", and it affects the quality of life, disability rate and even the survival of patients. This study aimed to observe the clinical efficacy, and adverse reactions of intradermal acupuncture (IA) in the treatment of RA patients with liver and kidney deficiency syndrome.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
132 RA patients were split into an IA group and a sham IA group at a 1:1 ratio. Both groups were assessed before and after the intervention with the assessments: a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome evaluation, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP).
RESULTS
There was a statistically significant difference in TCM syndrome evaluation, HAQ, DAS28, and CRP between both groups before and after treatment (P < 0.01). The improvement of TCM syndrome evaluation (95% CI [1.14(0.38-1.89)]; P = 0.001), HAQ (95% CI [2.00(1.00-3.00)]; P = 0.003), and DAS28 (95% CI [0.11(0.02-0.20)]; P = 0.021) in the IA group was more obvious than that in the sham IA group (P < 0.05), except for CRP (95% CI [0.50(- 2.09 to 7.08)], P = 0.786). The difference in CRP outcome changes between the two groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Both groups had comparable results in the implementation of RA in the upper and lower extremity acupoints and did not differ due to different sites (IA group: P = 0.852; sham IA group: P = 0.861). The comparison of effective rate of the upper limb as well as that of the lower limb was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Besides, patients reported no adverse effects.
CONCLUSION
The IA intervention was associated with a promising effect on the decrease in RA disease activity and delayed overall disease progression.
Collapse