Acupuncture for Patients With Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial | Complementary and Alternative Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.226.234.102. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Stewart WF, Shechter A, Rasmussen BK. Migraine prevalence: a review of population-based studies.  Neurology. 1994;44:(suppl 4)  S17-S238008222Google Scholar
2.
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Diamond S, Diamond ML, Reed M. Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: data from the American Migraine Study II.  Headache. 2001;41:646-65711554952Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Gray RN, Goslin RE, McCrory DC, Eberlein K, Tulsky J, Hasselblad V. Drug treatments for the prevention of migraine headache: technical review 2.3. 1999; Prepared for the Agency of Health Care Policy and Research. Available at: http://www.clinpol.mc.duke.edu. Accessibility verified March 31, 2005
4.
Melchart D, Linde K, Fischer P.  et al.  Acupuncture for recurrent headaches: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.  Cephalalgia. 1999;19:779-78610595286Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Melchart D, Linde K, Streng A.  et al.  Acupuncture randomized trials (ART) in patients with migraine or tension-type headache—design and protocols.  Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003;10:179-18412972722Google ScholarCrossref
6.
Machin D, Campbell MJ, Fayers PM, Pinol APY. Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies2nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 1997
7.
International Headache Society.  ICH-10 guide for headaches.  Cephalalgia. 1997;17:(suppl 19)  1-82Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Diener HC, Brune K, Gerber WD, Göbel H, Pfaffenrath V. Behandlung der Migräneattacke und Migräneprophylaxe.  Dt Ärztebl. 1997;94:C2277-C2283Google Scholar
9.
Nagel B, Gerbershagen HU, Lindena G, Pfingsten M. Entwicklung und empirische Überprüfung des Deutschen Schmerzfragebogens der DGSS.  Schmerz. 2002;16:263-27012192435Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Dillmann U, Nilges P, Saile E, Gerbershagen HU. Behinderungseinschätzung bei chronischen Schmerzpatienten.  Schmerz. 1994;8:100-110Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Geissner E. Die Schmerzempfindungsskala (SES)Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe; 1996
12.
Hautzinger M, Bailer M. Allgemeine Depressionsskala (ADS): Die deutsche Version des CES-DWeinheim, Germany: Beltz; 1993
13.
Bullinger M, Kirchberger I. SF-36 Fragebogen zum GesundheitszustandGöttingen, Germany: Hogrefe; 1998
14.
Vincent C. Credibility assessments in trials of acupuncture.  Complement Med Res. 1990;4:8-11Google Scholar
15.
International Headache Society Clinical Trials Subcommittee.  Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition.  Cephalalgia. 2000;20:765-78611167908Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Linde K, Rossnagel K. Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. Oxford, England: Cochrane Library, Update Software; 2004; issue 2. [Cochrane Review on CD-ROM]
17.
Diener HC, Matias-Guiu J, Hartung E.  et al.  Efficacy and tolerability in migraine prophylaxis of flunarizine in reduced doses: a comparison with propranolol 160 mg daily.  Cephalalgia. 2002;22:209-22112047461Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Brandes JL, Saper JR, Diamond M.  et al.  Topiramate for migraine prevention: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2004;291:965-97314982912Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? an analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment.  N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1594-160211372012Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Sandkühler J. The organization and function of endogenous antinociceptive systems.  Prog Neurobiol. 1996;50:49-818931107Google Scholar
21.
Irnich D, Beyer A. Neurobiologische Grundlagen der Akupunkturanalgesie  Schmerz. 2002;16:93-10211956894Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Kaptchuk TJ, Goldman P, Stone DA, Stason WB. Do medical devices have enhanced placebo effects?  J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:786-79210942860Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Kaptchuk TJ. The placebo effect in alternative medicine: can the performance of a healing ritual have clinical significance?  Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:817-82512044130Google ScholarCrossref
24.
Walach H, Jonas WB. Placebo research: the evidence base for harnessing self-healing capacities.  J Altern Complement Med. 2004;10:(suppl 1)  S103-S11215630827Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Vickers AJ, Rees RW, Zollmann CE.  et al.  Acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care: large, pragmatic, randomised trial.  BMJ. 2004;328:744-74615023828Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Wonderling D, Vickers AJ, Grieve R, McCarney R. Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial of acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care.  BMJ. 2004;328:747-74915023830Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Jena S, Becker-Wtt C, Brinkhaus B, Selim D, Willich SN. Effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for headache—the Acupuncture in Routine Care Study (ARC Headache).  Focus Altern Complement Ther. 2004;9:(suppl 1)  17Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Hesse J, Mogelvang B, Simonsen H. Acupuncture vs metoprolol in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized trial of trigger point inactivation.  J Intern Med. 1994;235:451-4568182401Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Allais G, De Lorenzo C, Quirico P.  et al.  Acupuncture in the prophylactic treatment of migraine without aura: a comparison with flunarizine.  Headache. 2002;42:855-86112390610Google ScholarCrossref
30.
Molsberger A, Diener HC, Krämer J.  et al.  GERAC-Akupunktur-Studien—Modellvorhaben zur beurteilung der Wirksamkeit [GERAC acupuncture trials—a program to assess effectiveness].  Dt Ärztebl. 2002;99:A1819-A1824Google Scholar
31.
Melchart D, Streng A, Reitmayr S, Hoppe A, Weidenhammer W, Linde K. Programm zur Evaluation der Patientenversorgung mit Akupunktur (PEP-AC)—die wissenschaftliche Begleitung des Modellvorhabens der Ersatzkassen [Program to evaluate acupuncture in the German health care system (PEP-AC)—the scientific concept of the program of a group of statutory sickness funds].  Z ärztl Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2004;98:471-473Google Scholar
Original Contribution
May 4, 2005

Acupuncture for Patients With Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Author Affiliations
 

Author Affiliations: Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II (Drs Linde, Streng, Hoppe, Weidenhammer, and Melchart and Mrs Jürgens), Institute of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology (Dr Wagenpfeil), and Department of Neurology (Dr Hammes), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany (Drs Brinkhaus, Witt, and Willich); Munich, Germany (Dr Pfaffenrath); and Division of Complementary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland (Dr Melchart).

JAMA. 2005;293(17):2118-2125. doi:10.1001/jama.293.17.2118
Abstract

Context Acupuncture is widely used to prevent migraine attacks, but the available evidence of its benefit is scarce.

Objective To investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture and with no acupuncture in patients with migraine.

Design, Setting, and Patients Three-group, randomized, controlled trial (April 2002-January 2003) involving 302 patients (88% women), mean (SD) age of 43 (11) years, with migraine headaches, based on International Headache Society criteria. Patients were treated at 18 outpatient centers in Germany.

Interventions Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 after randomization.

Main Outcome Measures Difference in headache days of moderate or severe intensity between the 4 weeks before and weeks 9 to 12 after randomization.

Results Between baseline and weeks 9 to 12, the mean (SD) number of days with headache of moderate or severe intensity decreased by 2.2 (2.7) days from a baseline of 5.2 (2.5) days in the acupuncture group compared with a decrease to 2.2 (2.7) days from a baseline of 5.0 (2.4) days in the sham acupuncture group, and by 0.8 (2.0) days from a baseline if 5.4 (3.0) days in the waiting list group. No difference was detected between the acupuncture and the sham acupuncture groups (0.0 days, 95% confidence interval, −0.7 to 0.7 days; P = .96) while there was a difference between the acupuncture group compared with the waiting list group (1.4 days; 95% confidence interval; 0.8-2.1 days; P<.001). The proportion of responders (reduction in headache days by at least 50%) was 51% in the acupuncture group, 53% in the sham acupuncture group, and 15% in the waiting list group.

Conclusion Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing migraine headaches although both interventions were more effective than a waiting list control.

×