Acupuncture and moxibustion in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: A randomized controlled study
Acupuncture and moxibustion in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: A randomized controlled study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00365520600580688
复制
发表时间：
2006-09-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Brinkhaus, Benno
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joos, Stefanie;Wildau, Nicole;Brinkhaus, Benno
目标。针灸传统上被中国用来治疗炎症性肠病，在西方国家越来越多地被应用。目的：观察针灸治疗活动期溃疡性结肠炎(UC)的疗效。材料和方法。采用前瞻性、随机、对照的临床试验方法，将29例轻、中度活动期UC患者(平均年龄37.89±12.0岁)随机分为传统针灸加艾灸治疗组(15例)和假针刺非针灸治疗组(对照组，14例)。所有患者均接受了为期5周的10次治疗，并进行了16周的随访。主要结果指标是治疗后结肠炎活动指数(CAI)的变化；次要结果指标是生活质量、总体幸福感和血清炎症标志物的变化。结果。中药组CAI值由8.0(+/-3.7)分降至4.2(+/-2.4)分，对照组由6.5(+/-3.4)分降至4.8(+/-3.9)分(P=0.048)。在两组中，这些变化都与总体幸福感的显著改善有关(中医组：从3.0(+/-1.8)到1.8(+/-1.0)；CG：从3.2(+/-1.9)到2.2(+/-1.7))和生活质量(中医组：从146(+/-23)到182(+/-18)；CG：从157(+/-20)到183(+/-23))。在这些次要结果指标上，中医组和对照组之间没有发现显著差异。结论。传统针刺与假针刺之间的疗效差异很小，只有在以计算机辅助诊断为主要疗效指标时才有显著差异。传统针灸和假针灸似乎都为轻度到中度活动的UC患者提供了额外的治疗益处。
Objective. Acupuncture has traditionally been used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease in China and is increasingly applied in Western countries. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of acupuncture and moxibustion in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis ( UC). Material and methods. In a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial 29 patients with mild to moderately active UC ( mean age 37.89 +/- 12.0 years) were randomly assigned to receive either traditional acupuncture and moxa ( TCM group, n = 15), or sham acupuncture consisting of superficial needling at non-acupuncture points ( control group, CG, n = 14). All patients were treated in 10 sessions over a period of 5 weeks and followed-up for 16 weeks. The main outcome measure was the change in the Colitis Activity Index ( CAI) after treatment; secondary outcome measures were changes in quality of life, general well-being and serum markers of inflammation. Results. In the TCM group, the CAI decreased from 8.0 ( +/- 3.7) to 4.2 ( +/- 2.4) points and in the control group from 6.5 ( +/- 3.4) to 4.8 ( +/- 3.9) points ( TCM versus CG: p = 0.048). In both groups these changes were associated with significant improvements in general well-being ( TCM group: from 3.0 ( +/- 1.8) to 1.8 ( +/- 1.0); CG: from 3.2 ( +/- 1.9) to 2.2 ( +/- 1.7)) and quality of life ( TCM group: from 146 ( +/- 23) to 182 ( +/- 18); CG: from 157 ( +/- 20) to 183 ( +/- 23)). No significant differences between the TCM and CG were found regarding these secondary outcome measures. Conclusions. Differences in efficacy between traditional acupuncture and sham acupuncture were small and significant only for CAI as the main outcome measure. Both traditional and sham acupuncture seem to offer an additional therapeutic benefit in patients with mild to moderately active UC.