A randomised trial of electro-acupuncture for arthralgia related to aromatase inhibitor use.
A randomised trial of electro-acupuncture for arthralgia related to aromatase inhibitor use.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.022
复制
发表时间：
2014-01
影响因子：
8.4
通讯作者：
DeMichele, Angela
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mao, Jun J.;Xie, Sharon X.;Farrar, John T.;Stricker, Carrie T.;Bowman, Marjorie A.;Bruner, Deborah;DeMichele, Angela
关键词：
关节痛是接受芳香化酶抑制剂（AI）的乳腺癌患者经历的常见且使人衰弱的副作用，并且通常导致过早停药。我们进行了一项随机对照试验，电针（EA）相比，等待名单控制（WLC）和假针灸（SA）的绝经后妇女乳腺癌谁自我报告关节痛归因于AI。针灸师在八周内使用人工协议进行了十次EA/SA治疗，其中2 Hz电刺激由TENS单元提供。针灸师使用Streitberger（非穿透性）针在非传统穴位处施用SA，而不进行电刺激。主要终点是第8周时EA和WLC之间通过简明疼痛量表（BPI）评估的疼痛严重程度;第12周时缓解的持久性和EA与SA的比较是次要目的。在67名随机分配的患者中，在第8周（-2.2 vs.-0.2，p=0.0004）和第12周（-2.4 vs.-0.2，p<0.0001），EA组疼痛严重程度的平均减轻程度大于WLC组。在第8周（−2.0 vs. 0.2，p=0.0006）和第12周（−2.1 vs. −0.1，p=0.0034），EA组通过BPI测量的疼痛相关干扰也比WLC组有所改善。SA在第8周（分别为-2.3，-1.5）和第12周（分别为-1.7，-1.3）产生的疼痛严重程度和疼痛相关干扰的变化幅度与EA相似。EA和SA组的参与者报告了很少的轻微不良事件。与常规护理相比，EA对乳腺癌患者与AI相关的关节痛产生了临床重要且持久的改善，SA具有相似的效果。EA和SA都是安全的。
Arthralgia is a common and debilitating side effect experienced by breast cancer patients receiving aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and often results in premature drug discontinuation. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of electro-acupuncture (EA) as compared to waitlist control (WLC) and sham acupuncture (SA) in postmenopausal women with breast cancer who self-reported arthralgia attributable to AIs. Acupuncturists performed ten EA/SA treatments over eight weeks using a manualized protocol with 2 Hz electro-stimulation delivered by a TENS unit. Acupuncturists administered SA using Streitberger (non-penetrating) needles at non-traditional acupuncture points without electro-stimulation. The primary endpoint was pain severity by Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) between EA and WLC at Week 8; durability of response at Week 12 and comparison of EA to SA were secondary aims. Of the 67 randomly assigned patients, mean reduction in pain severity was greater in the EA group than in the WLC group at Week 8 (−2.2 vs. −0.2, p=0.0004) and at Week 12 (−2.4 vs. −0.2, p<0.0001). Pain-related interference measured by BPI also improved in the EA group compared to the WLC group at both Week 8 (−2.0 vs. 0.2, p=0.0006) and Week 12 (−2.1 vs. −0.1, p=0.0034). SA produced a magnitude of change in pain severity and pain-related interference at Week 8 (−2.3, −1.5 respectively) and Week 12 (−1.7, −1.3 respectively) similar to that of EA. Participants in both EA and SA groups reported few minor adverse events. Compared to usual care, EA produced clinically important and durable improvement in arthralgia related to AIs in breast cancer patients, and SA had a similar effect. Both EA and SA were safe.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Harris, Richard E.;Zubieta, Jon-Kar;Scott, David J.;Napadow, Vitaly;Gracely, Richard H.;Clauw, Daniel J.
通讯作者：
Clauw, Daniel J.
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Streitberger, K;Kleinhenz, J
通讯作者：
Kleinhenz, J
影响因子：
8.9
作者：
Sloan, JA;Aaronson, N;Varricchio, C
通讯作者：
Varricchio, C
影响因子：
45.3
作者：
Henry, N. Lynn;Azzouz, Faouzi;Storniolo, Anna Maria
通讯作者：
Storniolo, Anna Maria
DOI：
10.1111/j.1532-5415.1990.tb01373.x
发表时间：
1990-10-01
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
REUBEN, DB;SIU, AL
通讯作者：
SIU, AL