Acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis: a randomized controlled trial
Acupuncture is commonly used to treat migraine. We assessed the efficacy of acupuncture at migraine-specific acupuncture points compared with other acupuncture points and sham acupuncture.
We performed a multicentre, singleblind randomized controlled trial. In total, 480 patients with migraine were randomly assigned to one of four groups (Shaoyang-specific acupuncture, Shaoyang-nonspecific acupuncture, Yangming-specific acupuncture or sham acupuncture [control]). All groups received 20 treatments, which included electrical stimulation, over a period of four weeks. The primary outcome was the number of days with a migraine experienced during weeks 5–8 after randomization. Our secondary outcomes included the frequency of migraine attack, migraine intensity and migrainespecific quality of life.
Compared with patients in the control group, patients in the acupuncture groups reported fewer days with a migraine during weeks 5–8, however the differences between treatments were not significant (p > 0.05). There was a significant reduction in the number of days with a migraine during weeks 13–16 in all acupuncture groups compared with control (Shaoyang-specific acupuncture v. control: difference −1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) −1.77 to −0.5], p = 0.003; Shaoyang-nonspecific acupuncture v. control: difference −1.22 [95% CI −1.92 to −0.52], p < 0.001; Yangming-specific acupuncture v. control: difference −0.91 [95% CI −1.61 to −0.21], p = 0.011). We found that there was a significant, but not clinically relevant, benefit for almost all secondary outcomes in the three acupuncture groups compared with the control group. We found no relevant differences between the three acupuncture groups.
Acupuncture tested appeared to have a clinically minor effect on migraine prophylaxis compared with sham acupuncture.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Linde K, Allais G, Brinkhaus B et al. Acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):CD001218. ReviewGoogle Scholar