OBJECTIVE: To observe the therapeutic effect of acupuncture and moxibustion interventions in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). METHODS: A total of 133 CFS patients were randomized into acupuncture group (47 cases), warm-needling group (44 cases) and non-acupoint group (42 cases). Manual acupuncture (MA) stimulation was applied to Baihui (GV 20), Danzhong (CV 17), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4), bilateral Zusanli (ST 36), Hegu (LI 4), Taichong (LR 3) and Sanyinjiao (SP 6) for patients in the acupuncture group. For patients in the warm-needling group, moxa-heated needle was applied to Baihui (GV 20), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4) and bilateral Zusanli (ST 36). Non-acupoints were located about 1-2 cm beside the Baihui (GV 20), Danzhong (CV 17), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4), Zusanli (ST 36), Taichong (LR 3), Sanyinjiao (SP 6) and Hegu (LI 4). The treatment was given once daily for 20 days. The Chalder Fatigue Scale (14-item fatigue scale) was adopted to evaluate the changes of CFS before and after the treatment. RESULTS: In comparison with pre-treatment, the scores of Chalder Fatigue Scale including physical and mental fatigue and total score were significantly decreased in both acupuncture and warm-needling groups (P < 0.05, P < 0.01), but not in the non-acupoint group (P > 0.05) except physical score (P < 0.05). The physical, mental and total scores of the acupuncture and warm-needling groups were significantly lower than those of the non-acupoint group (P < 0.05, P < 0.01), while the physical and total scores of the warm-needling group were markedly lower than those of the acupuncture group (P < 0.05). After the treatment, the CFS patients' satisfactory rates of the acupuncture, warm-needling and non-acupoint groups were 36.2% (17/47), 72.7% (32/44) and 35.7% (15/42), respectively. CONCLUSION: Both MA and warm-needling interventions have a good therapeutic effect in the treatment of CFS patients, while the latter is obviously better.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To observe the therapeutic effect of acupuncture and moxibustion interventions in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). METHODS: A total of 133 CFS patients were randomized into acupuncture group (47 cases), warm-needling group (44 cases) and non-acupoint group (42 cases). Manual acupuncture (MA) stimulation was applied to Baihui (GV 20), Danzhong (CV 17), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4), bilateral Zusanli (ST 36), Hegu (LI 4), Taichong (LR 3) and Sanyinjiao (SP 6) for patients in the acupuncture group. For patients in the warm-needling group, moxa-heated needle was applied to Baihui (GV 20), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4) and bilateral Zusanli (ST 36). Non-acupoints were located about 1-2 cm beside the Baihui (GV 20), Danzhong (CV 17), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4), Zusanli (ST 36), Taichong (LR 3), Sanyinjiao (SP 6) and Hegu (LI 4). The treatment was given once daily for 20 days. The Chalder Fatigue Scale (14-item fatigue scale) was adopted to evaluate the changes of CFS before and after the treatment. RESULTS: In comparison with pre-treatment, the scores of Chalder Fatigue Scale including physical and mental fatigue and total score were significantly decreased in both acupuncture and warm-needling groups (P < 0.05, P < 0.01), but not in the non-acupoint group (P > 0.05) except physical score (P < 0.05). The physical, mental and total scores of the acupuncture and warm-needling groups were significantly lower than those of the non-acupoint group (P < 0.05, P < 0.01), while the physical and total scores of the warm-needling group were markedly lower than those of the acupuncture group (P < 0.05). After the treatment, the CFS patients' satisfactory rates of the acupuncture, warm-needling and non-acupoint groups were 36.2% (17/47), 72.7% (32/44) and 35.7% (15/42), respectively. CONCLUSION: Both MA and warm-needling interventions have a good therapeutic effect in the treatment of CFS patients, while the latter is obviously better.
Authors: Rahel S König; Werner C Albrich; Christian R Kahlert; Lina Samira Bahr; Ulrike Löber; Pietro Vernazza; Carmen Scheibenbogen; Sofia K Forslund Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 8.786