Noah A Zucker1, Alex Tsodikov2, Scott D Mist3, Stephen Cina4, Vitaly Napadow4, Richard E Harris1. 1. Departments of Anesthesiology. 2. Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. School of Nursing and Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon. 4. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fibromyalgia is a chronic pain condition with few effective treatments. Many fibromyalgia patients seek acupuncture for analgesia; however, its efficacy is limited and not fully understood. This may be due to heterogeneous pathologies among participants in acupuncture clinical trials. We hypothesized that pressure pain tenderness would differentially classify treatment response to verum and sham acupuncture in fibromyalgia patients. DESIGN: Baseline pressure pain sensitivity at the thumbnail at baseline was used in linear mixed models as a modifier of differential treatment response to sham versus verum acupuncture. Similarly, needle-induced sensation was also analyzed to determine its differential effect of treatment on clinical pain. METHODS AND PATIENTS: A cohort of 114 fibromyalgia patients received baseline pressure pain testing and were randomized to either verum (N = 59) or sham (N = 55) acupuncture. Participants received treatments from once a week to three times a week, increasing in three-week blocks for a total of 18 treatments. Clinical pain was measured on a 101-point visual analog scale, and needle sensation was measured by questionnaire throughout the trial. RESULTS: Participants who had higher pain pressure thresholds had greater reduction in clinical pain following verum acupuncture while participants who had lower pain pressure thresholds showed better analgesic response to sham acupuncture. Moreover, patients with lower pressure pain thresholds had exacerbated clinical pain following verum acupuncture. Similar relationships were observed for sensitivity to acupuncture needling. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that acupuncture efficacy in fibromyalgia may be underestimated and a more personalized treatment for fibromyalgia may also be possible.
OBJECTIVE: Fibromyalgia is a chronic pain condition with few effective treatments. Many fibromyalgia patients seek acupuncture for analgesia; however, its efficacy is limited and not fully understood. This may be due to heterogeneous pathologies among participants in acupuncture clinical trials. We hypothesized that pressure pain tenderness would differentially classify treatment response to verum and sham acupuncture in fibromyalgia patients. DESIGN: Baseline pressure pain sensitivity at the thumbnail at baseline was used in linear mixed models as a modifier of differential treatment response to sham versus verum acupuncture. Similarly, needle-induced sensation was also analyzed to determine its differential effect of treatment on clinical pain. METHODS AND PATIENTS: A cohort of 114 fibromyalgia patients received baseline pressure pain testing and were randomized to either verum (N = 59) or sham (N = 55) acupuncture. Participants received treatments from once a week to three times a week, increasing in three-week blocks for a total of 18 treatments. Clinical pain was measured on a 101-point visual analog scale, and needle sensation was measured by questionnaire throughout the trial. RESULTS: Participants who had higher pain pressure thresholds had greater reduction in clinical pain following verum acupuncture while participants who had lower pain pressure thresholds showed better analgesic response to sham acupuncture. Moreover, patients with lower pressure pain thresholds had exacerbated clinical pain following verum acupuncture. Similar relationships were observed for sensitivity to acupuncture needling. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that acupuncture efficacy in fibromyalgia may be underestimated and a more personalized treatment for fibromyalgia may also be possible.
Authors: Robert R Edwards; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Prabhav Tella; Mitchell B Max; Srinivasa Raja Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Richard E Harris; Xiaoming Tian; David A Williams; Thomas X Tian; Thomas R Cupps; Frank Petzke; Kimberly H Groner; Pinaki Biswas; Richard H Gracely; Daniel J Clauw Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Bruce W Smith; Erin M Tooley; Erica Q Montague; Amanda E Robinson; Cynthia J Cosper; Paul G Mullins Journal: Pain Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Alexandra C Maschino; George Lewith; Hugh MacPherson; Nadine E Foster; Karen J Sherman; Claudia M Witt; Klaus Linde Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-10-22
Authors: Andrew Schrepf; Daniel E Harper; Steven E Harte; Heng Wang; Eric Ichesco; Johnson P Hampson; Jon-Kar Zubieta; Daniel J Clauw; Richard E Harris Journal: Pain Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Ann T Farrell; Julie Panepinto; C Patrick Carroll; Deepika S Darbari; Ankit A Desai; Allison A King; Robert J Adams; Tabitha D Barber; Amanda M Brandow; Michael R DeBaun; Manus J Donahue; Kalpna Gupta; Jane S Hankins; Michelle Kameka; Fenella J Kirkham; Harvey Luksenburg; Shirley Miller; Patricia Ann Oneal; David C Rees; Rosanna Setse; Vivien A Sheehan; John Strouse; Cheryl L Stucky; Ellen M Werner; John C Wood; William T Zempsky Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-12-10
Authors: Jiang-Ti Kong; Chelcie Puetz; Lu Tian; Isaac Haynes; Eunyoung Lee; Randall S Stafford; Rachel Manber; Sean Mackey Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-10-01