Comparison between acupuncture therapy and gabapentin for chronic pain: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether the effect of true electroacupuncture on pain and functionality in chronic pain participants can be differentiated from that of medication (gabapentin) by analyzing quantitative sensory testing (QST). METHODS: We recruited chronic back and neck pain participants who received six sessions (twice weekly) of true electroacupuncture versus sham electroacupuncture or 3 weeks of gabapentin versus placebo treatment. QST profiles, pain scores, and functionality profile were obtained at baseline (visit 1) and after three sessions (visit 4) or six sessions (visit 7) of acupuncture or 3 weeks of gabapentin or placebo. RESULTS: A total of 50 participants were analyzed. We found no differences in QST profile changes (p = 0.892), pain reduction (p = 0.222), or functionality (p = 0.254) between the four groups. A major limitation of this pilot study was the limited number of study participants in each group. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that a large-scale clinical study with an adequate sample size would be warranted to compare acupuncture and medication therapy for chronic pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01678586 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

A randomized trial to assess the immediate impact of acupuncture on quantitative sensory testing, pain, and functional status.

In this randomized clinical trial, we examined whether the effect of true acupuncture can be differentiated from sham acupuncture (pain and functionality) by analyzing quantitative sensory testing (QST) profiles in chronic pain participants. We recruited 254 healthy or chronic back and neck pain participants. Healthy subjects were included to control for a possible effect of acupuncture on baseline QST changes. Study participants received 6 sessions (twice weekly) of true acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or no acupuncture treatment (routine care). Quantitative sensory testing profiles, pain scores, and functionality profile were obtained at baseline (visit 1) and after 3 (visit 4) or 6 sessions (visit 7). A total of 204 participants were analyzed. We found no QST profile changes among 3 groups (P = 0.533 and P = 0.549, likelihood ratio tests) in either healthy or chronic pain participants. In chronic back and neck pain participants, true acupuncture reduced pain (visit 4: difference in mean [DIM] = -0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.4 to -0.1, adjusted P = 0.168; visit 7: DIM = -1.0, 95% CI: -1.7 to -0.3, adjusted P = 0.021) and improved functional status including physical functioning (DIM = 14.21, 95% CI: 5.84-22.58, adjusted P = 0.003) and energy/fatigue (DIM = 12.28, 95% CI: 3.46-21.11, adjusted P = 0.021) as compared to routine care. Our results indicate that QST was not helpful to differentiate between true acupuncture and sham acupuncture (primary outcome) in this study, although true acupuncture reduced pain and improved functionality (secondary outcomes) when compared with routine care.