11. Acupuncture
Adrian White and Claudia M. Witt
Chapter Contents
The acupuncture intervention219
Control interventions223
Outcomes228
Comment on study design (explanatory and pragmatic studies)229
Conclusion231
This chapter should not be read in isolation, but in the context of both Chapter 1, which discusses the place for, interpretation of, and problems in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research, and Chapter 5, which discusses the fundamental principles of research, particularly the randomized controlled trial (RCT). Both these chapters illustrate several points with examples from acupuncture research, which will not be repeated here. This chapter will discuss the particular applications of these general principles to acupuncture research.
Introduction
At the time of writing, the recent history of acupuncture research has been dominated by the Modellvorhaben Akupunktur, a programme of trials funded by German health insurance companies using various designs to investigate the effectiveness, efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for common conditions (headache, migraine, neck pain, back pain, osteoarthritis of hip and knee, allergic rhinitis and dysmenorrhoea) (Linde et al., 2006 and Witt et al., 2006a). Anyone planning an RCT of acupuncture would be well advised to study the published protocols and reports of these research projects in detail, as they were exemplary in many ways.
The results of the programme with regard to the effectiveness of acupuncture can be briefly summarized as follows: for musculoskeletal conditions, acupuncture was much more effective than usual care, or standardized care; so was sham acupuncture (shallow needling of wrong points, sometimes called ‘placebo’, as discussed below); there was a small trend for acupuncture to be superior to sham acupuncture, but the difference was significant in only one study (Witt et al. 2005). Similarly for tension headache, acupuncture was better than waiting list (Melchart et al. 2005) and not superior to sham (Endres et al. 2007). In the case of migraine, acupuncture’s effect was no different from the effect of standard prophylactic medication (beta-blockers, flunarizine or valproic acid) (Diener et al. 2006).
The programme was designed specifically to provide evidence for the decision on whether to reimburse treatment with acupuncture, and on the basis of the results it was decided to refund acupuncture treatment for:
• knee pain, where acupuncture was clearly effective and in one of two trials superior to sham acupuncture
• back pain, where acupuncture was clearly more effective than existing guideline-based care, though not superior to sham acupuncture
However, only doctors who have advanced diplomas in psychological medicine and in pain qualify for reimbursement.
The results of these trials have not been as conclusive as acupuncturists had hoped – particularly the lack of clear, consistent superiority of acupuncture over placebo. Various aspects of the studies have generated debate, such as what is ‘adequate’ acupuncture, how important is choice of point location and what is a satisfactory ‘placebo’ for acupuncture. For some commentators, acupuncture remains ‘on trial’ but others dismiss it as no more than a placebo. The history of acupuncture research is full of studies with negative results which could, in retrospect, have been anticipated from features of the design – such as inappropriate conditions or patients, suboptimal treatment regimes, poorly chosen control groups or insensitive measures. In order to end up with a representative and truthful evaluation of acupuncture, study design is crucial: studies must have the best chance of showing an effect as well as high methodological quality. This chapter will discuss important aspects of study design.
Approach
Acupuncture treatment can be seen as having two components, each of them complex: (1) the insertion and stimulation of the needle – which is largely mechanical and reproducible; and (2) the other aspects of the therapeutic interaction, such as the belief and expectations of the practitioner and the patient, the demeanour of the practitioner, the formulation of a diagnosis – which are essentially subjective and difficult to reproduce and measure. This chapter mainly deals with the mechanical aspects of needling, not because this is necessarily more important but because it is what acupuncturists spend much time and effort in learning. The process of needling is also what is understood by the world at large as the principle component of acupuncture. And it seems important to demonstrate somehow that the correct form of acupuncture needling is superior to placebo (even though, in practice, the effect of acupuncture is considerably enhanced by the other aspects of treatment), since health regulators have come to regard this as essential precondition for integration and reimbursement.
This chapter assumes that needles act principally by stimulating the nervous system. It will adopt the PICO (participants, intervention, control, outcomes) sequence, then will offer some comments on study design and economic evaluation.
Participants
It is still not known why some patients respond better than others (i.e. what are the predictor variables of an acupuncture response), apart from the general statement that less severe cases are more likely to respond than severe ones. It would be an ideal arrangement if controlled trials of acupuncture could include only known responders, as happens in many studies of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories: patients are recruited only if they are already taking the drug, and they are asked to stop (Bjordal et al. 2004). Then they are randomized only if they show a significant worsening of symptoms, i.e. they are responders. However, with acupuncture, patients who have received treatment are likely to identify if they are subsequently given placebo/sham acupuncture. In addition, selecting only the responders would decrease the external validity of the results.
It is also important to choose participants with a clinical condition that is known to respond. Acupuncture has gained a reputation as a panacea for all kinds of condition, but it is still most commonly used for musculoskeletal conditions, and this is where it seems to hold most promise according to systematic reviews. The effects of acupuncture on other forms of chronic pain, such as cancer pain or fibromyalgia, are less clear. The balance of evidence shows an effect in nausea and vomiting, though some well-run studies have also had negative results, and other promising areas include postoperative pain and allergic rhinitis.
It is probably most difficult to measure an effect of acupuncture when this is likely to be rather small in relation to the ‘placebo response’ of patients. Some conditions, such as menopausal hot flushes and irritable bowel syndrome, are known to have relatively large psychological responses to any treatment, so studies in these conditions are likely to have to use large sample sizes.
The acupuncture intervention
Acupuncture can be standardized (formula acupuncture); semi-standardized, for example allowing variation in prespecified ways in response to certain symptoms; or individualized, given as in daily practice. There is no evidence published so far that one type of acupuncture is more effective than any other, though individualized acupuncture is certainly more satisfying for the practitioner.
Adequate acupuncture
This section reproduces in part an article on dose of acupuncture to which many authors contributed in a consensus process (White et al. 2008).
Acupuncture’s development over 2000 years has taken place in different centres in China, Japan, Korea and other parts of the world, and understandably many different styles of practice now exist. Currently, there is considerable disagreement among acupuncturists, particularly those trained in different schools, about what constitutes the best treatment for different conditions and for different patients. A treatment protocol (i.e. a precise description of the procedures and the schedule for a course of treatment) that is one practitioner’s favourite may be dismissed by another.
It is inconceivable that any pharmaceutical company would spend resources on clinical trials of a new drug until they know the characteristics of the dosage and the patients likely to respond. Yet, because acupuncture research has, for the most part, skipped some of the necessary earlier phases of research in which the dose–response relationship is carefully examined (Campbell et al. 2000), there is a dearth of data upon which to base decisions about optimal acupuncture protocols.
A definition of the ‘dose’ of acupuncture has been suggested (Box 11.1). Clearly, the effect of needling will vary at different sites in the body, but for simplicity we shall not consider the location of needling in these general comments. The dose required to treat different health conditions will vary depending on the intended mechanism of the effect, e.g. whether local, segmental, extrasegmental or central. Some conditions, e.g. migraine or fibromyalgia, probably require several mechanisms to be activated if treatment is to be effective (Filshie & White 1998). And some conditions, again including fibromyalgia, may require wide variations in dose according to the degree to which the nervous system is sensitized in a particular patient (Lundeberg & Lund 2007).
BOX 11.1
The physical procedures applied in each session, using one or more needles, and the patient’s resulting perception, sensory as well as affective and cognitive
Different doses will be required for different conditions and for different states of the nervous system
Please note that the patient’s response is also part of the dose. This looks odd at first, because a response is usually what is elicited by the dose. However, the dose of acupuncture consists of more than just the mechanical stimulation: patients come to acupuncture with beliefs and expectations already formed, and these may subsequently be altered by the experience of the treatment. These cognitive factors are known to influence the effects of acupuncture, so they should be regarded as part of the total dose, and measured if we are to know fully what treatment the patient has received. Unfortunately, measurement of these factors is not easy or reliable.
The components that make up the purely mechanical aspects of acupuncture are set out in the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines (MacPherson et al. 2002), which are discussed below.
Deciding on an adequate dose of acupuncture
There are several approaches for deciding what is ‘adequate’ for any condition, and the original references should be consulted for full descriptions:
1. Clinical opinion. What clinicians think is the best treatment can be determined in several ways. Firstly, by observing different practitioners (Napadow et al. 2004). Secondly, by establishing some kind of clinical consensus, either using methods such as the Delphi method (Webster-Harrison et al. 2002), consensus surveys or conference-type processes (Foster et al., 1999, Witt et al., 2005, Molsberger et al., 2006a, Molsberger et al., 2006b and MacPherson and Schroer, 2007) or by using a stepwise procedure to develop protocols in a ‘treatment manualization’ process (Schnyer & Allen 2002). Thirdly, by examining the traditional acupuncture texts (Birch 1997), though the value of this approach may be limited by difficulties of translation.
2. Clinical trials. The most reliable method of determining an adequate acupuncture protocol would be by directly comparing different protocols in patients in a tightly controlled, explanatory trial, ideally in conditions in which one form of acupuncture has already been shown to be effective. The protocols would need to be established first, using various combinations of clinical consensus and basic research. The choice of protocol for testing would vary between different ‘schools’. One group of researchers used this approach for fibromyalgia, and found that relief of symptoms depended neither on the point location nor the manner of stimulation of the needles – though it did depend on how frequently the treatment was given (Harris et al. 2005). Studies in other conditions may have very different results. The major problem with direct comparisons is that studies need to be large to demonstrate the small differences that are likely to exist between protocols.
3. Basic research. Laboratory studies have mostly explored the effect of different treatment parameters on an outcome such as pain threshold in healthy human volunteers (Marcus, 1994, Barlas et al., 2000 and Zaslawski et al., 2003). Results suggest that stimulation intensity is the single most important determinant of analgesia, and that there is interindividual variation as to how people respond to this type of stimulation. However, it may not be appropriate to apply the findings of experiments in healthy volunteers to patients with clinical conditions since our knowledge of the mechanisms of symptoms such as chronic pain, joint stiffness, depression, hot flushes and so on is incomplete.
4. Reviews. Systematic reviews of RCTs offer the opportunity to compare the effects of different treatment regimens. In one well-known example, Ezzo and colleagues (2000) demonstrated that trials using six or more sessions of acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee were more likely to be positive than those using fewer than six.
5. Individual patient data. The different treatment effects in individual patients could be revealed by the use of individual patient data, as in the Acupuncture Trialists’ Collaboration. Individual patient data from many trials will be combined into a single database and analysed to determine whether characteristics of acupuncture such as the number of treatment sessions, treatment style or practitioner qualifications affect outcome.
A combination of clinical opinion and some published evidence was used in one systematic review to set a threshold for ‘adequate’ acupuncture for treating knee osteoarthritis: ‘at least six treatments, at least one per week, with at least four points needled for each painful knee for at least 20 minutes, and either needle sensation (deqi) achieved in manual acupuncture, or electrical stimulation of sufficient intensity to produce more than minimal sensation’ (White et al. 2007).
Reporting acupuncture treatment – STRICTA guidelines
Acupuncture is a procedure that has many variable components. In order to encourage researchers to report it in a way that can be reproduced and interpreted, a group of researchers formed a consensus on what criteria need to be reported. These are known as the STRICTA criteria – standing for Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (MacPherson et al. 2002). They cover:
• rationale behind the particular use of acupuncture in the study
• details of needling
• regimen of treatment over time
• other components of treatment
• practitioner background
• control or comparison groups, where relevant.
Descriptions of the criteria can be presented either in the text or in a table. The criteria should be applied flexibly according to the context, as it will not be necessary to provide all details in all circumstances – for example, not all studies use co-interventions or control groups.
These guidelines are currently (2010) under revision and readers should search for the latest version. STRICTA should be used in addition to the general Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting trials and may come to be regarded as an extension to CONSORT.
Co-interventions
Most studies test acupuncture as a sole intervention, for the obvious reason that this is the only way to be sure that any changes are due to the acupuncture itself. At most, the only other intervention available to patients is rescue analgesia.
However, in practice acupuncture is often used together with massage, manipulation, exercise and so on, and a few studies have investigated such combinations. In one of the German studies of acupuncture for knee pain, all patients received physiotherapy involving strengthening and aerobic exercises, the acupuncture group received additional acupuncture whereas the control group received additional sham acupuncture (Scharf et al. 2006). Interestingly, a review found that the effect of acupuncture in this study was much smaller than in studies in which acupuncture patients received rescue medication only (White et al. 2007).
Further, in a UK study also in patients with knee osteoarthritis, acupuncture (or sham acupuncture) was given in addition to individualized strengthening and aerobic exercises. This study also found that acupuncture had no additional effect (Foster et al. 2007). It seems possible that appropriate exercise can have a ‘ceiling’ effect in osteoarthritis, so that acupuncture is unable to show any additional effect. The size of the effect of exercise in this study was rather similar to the average size of the effect of acupuncture in the review (White et al. 2007). If this ceiling effect of exercise is supported by other evidence, the implication for practice is that the choice between exercise and acupuncture could depend on their cost-effectiveness, or on patient preference.
Control interventions
Two of the fundamental research questions for acupuncture – does it have a useful effect for patients? does it have a biological effect? – require different control groups: standard care and ‘placebo’ control.
Standard care
There is now good evidence that acupuncture is a good alternative to conventional treatment for a number of conditions. Two of the German studies used standard care based on guidelines as the control. For back pain, for example, acupuncture was compared with standardized, multimodal care according to German, evidence-based guidelines (Haake et al. 2007). Participants received 10 consultations with the physician, exercise therapy and analgesics (paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) during painful periods. The response rate in the acupuncture group was 47.6%, compared with 27.4% in the standardized care group (P<0.001). Interestingly, the response rate in the sham acupuncture group was 44.2%, also statistically superior to standardized care (P<0.001), and not significantly different from acupuncture.
Although acupuncture appears to have had an impressive effect in this study, we should bear in mind that these patients had experienced pain for at least 6 months, were recruited for a trial of acupuncture through media advertisements, and might expect or at least hope to receive acupuncture. Those who were randomized to continue with the same treatment would be disappointed, possibly leading to some negative bias in scoring the effect of treatment, though it might be unreasonable to argue that bias could account for the whole of the difference between groups. Therefore the results are open to interpretation: detractors of acupuncture will dismiss the results as due entirely to the placebo effect.
Sham (‘placebo’) acupuncture
When it comes to demonstrating the biological activity of acupuncture, the questions resolve into several issues, the main ones being: What are the active components of needle stimulation? Does needle stimulation have an effect at acupuncture points, according to classical theory? Does needle stimulation have an effect anywhere that it stimulates a nerve (i.e. including outside acupuncture points), according to neurophysiological theory? The existence of a true acupuncture placebo would greatly help in resolving these issues.
Terminology for sham acupuncture
Any realistic control intervention for acupuncture must press or at least touch the patient’s skin, and so stimulate nerve endings. Therefore it will not be completely inactive and cannot be called a ‘placebo’ control. Other terms have been suggested, though are not used consistently. ‘Sham’ acupuncture has been used to mean needling wrong points (Lewith et al., 1983, Hammerschlag, 1998 and Lewith and Vincent, 1998); ‘minimal’ acupuncture has been used for superficial needling. Some authors have argued that the term ‘sham’ should be used for all methods as it places emphasis on the psychological impact on the subject (Park et al. 1999), so the procedure should always be described in full.
Here, we shall use the term ‘sham’ for any procedure that pretends to be acupuncture. The sham may be either ‘penetrating’ or ‘non-penetrating’. This concept is somewhat similar to the recommend use of the terms ‘invasive needle control’ and ‘dummy needling control’ (White et al. 2006).
The essential features of the ideal acupuncture sham are: (1) that it should match what the subject (or at least, the acupuncture-naïve subject) expects to see and experience with needling; but (2) that it should not produce the specific needle sensation, deqi. Margolin et al. (1998) suggest an additional test, that it should have the same likelihood of adverse events leading to dropout as the real intervention, but this applies only to its appearance and acceptability, and not to its physiological effects.
Sham procedures
Several sham acupuncture procedures have been devised, including both penetrating and non-penetrating types:
1. Standard needles inserted into inappropriate sites and/or superficially. This is by far the most common form of sham acupuncture.
2. Standard needles used in an abnormal way, either pressing with the handle (Hesse et al. 1994) or just pricking the surface of the skin and immediately being removed (Moore & Berk 1976).
3. Other devices used to touch or press the skin, such as the fingernail (Junnila 1982), an empty guide tube (Lao et al. 1994) or a cocktail stick (White et al. 1996). Ingeniously, Lao et al. (1995) attached leads from inactive electrostimulation apparatus to both groups in order to reduce the perceived differences between the procedures.
4. Sham forms of other treatments, such as inactivated transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation or laser apparatus (Macdonald et al., 1983 and Dowson et al., 1985). These are less than ideal, because the placebo effects of inactivated electrical devices are likely to be different from those of needles. Therefore, any differences in the outcomes of the two groups cannot be attributed solely to the specific effect of acupuncture.
5. Non-penetrating, blunted needles. A major advance was the development by Streitberger & Kleinhenz (1998)
Buy Membership for Complementary Medicine Category to continue reading. Learn more here
