| Literature DB >> 29325594 |
Jiaoping Mi1, Xinye Chen2, Xiaoyan Lin3, Jianling Guo1, Hongtao Chen4, Liao Wei1, Haiyu Hong1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a common respiratory disease. Acupuncture is used to treat it in traditional Chinese medicine, and generally, the L120, ST2 and ST36 acupoints are selected in clinical practice. We report a new method of acupuncture at the sphenopalatine acupoint (SPA) for treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR). The effect of this treatment was investigated using two different needling depths. The efficacy of this treatment was associated with accurate stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG). METHODS/Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; Nasal nerve adjustment; Persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR); Sphenopalatine acupoint (SPA)
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29325594 PMCID: PMC5765676 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2339-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trials ISSN: 1745-6215 Impact factor: 2.279
Fig. 1Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow diagram describing participant allocation in this study
Fig. 2Acupuncture needle point. The black arrow shows the Die-e acupoint, which is located under the zygomatic arch between the coronoid process and the mandibular condyle. Acupuncture on the Die-e point at a needling depth of 50 mm and 20 mm in the real acupuncture group and in the sham acupuncture group, respectively
Comparison of participant characteristics in the two groups
| Real acupuncture group | Sham acupuncture group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Age (years) | 35.87 ± 10.36 | 35.97 ± 9.15 | 0.550 |
| Male/female, number of participants | 16/14 | 17/14 | 0.521 |
| History of PAR | 49.03 ± 29.84 | 51.17 ± 32.39 | 0.907 |
| RQLQ score | 45.93 ± 8.67 | 49.16 ± 7.87 | 0.133 |
| Sleep | 7.9 ± 3.34 | 8.00 ± 4.48 | 0.922 |
| Non-nasal/eye | 18.83 ± 4.43 | 20.81 ± 4.44 | 0.086 |
| Behavior | 12.00 ± 3.00 | 12.1 ± 3.36 | 0.905 |
| Emotional function | 7.23 ± 2.5 | 8.3 ± 2.15 | 0.081 |
Values are expressed as mean ± SD unless stated otherwise
PAR persistent allergic rhinitis, RQLQ Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire
P > 0.05 indicates there was no statistically significant difference
Baseline 14-day nasal symptom scores in the two groups (median (25th percentile, 75th percentile))
| Real acupuncture group | Sham acupuncture group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Nasal obstruction | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 3.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 0.521 |
| Rhinorrhea | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 0.759 |
| Sneezing | 3.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 3.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 0.398 |
| Nasal itch | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00) | 1.00 (1.00, 2.00) | 0.301 |
| TNSS | 9.00 (7.75, 10.00) | 9.00 (7.00, 10.00) | 0.618 |
The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the real acupuncture group with the sham acupuncture group
TNSS total nasal symptom score
P > 0.05 indicates no statistically significant differences
Changes from baseline in the 14-day nasal symptom scores (median (25th percentile, 75th percentile))
| Real acupuncture group | Sham acupuncture group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| After treatment (week 2) | |||
| Nasal obstruction | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00)* | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | <0.001 |
| Rhinorrhea | 2.00 (2.00, 2.00)* | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | NS |
| Sneezing | 1.50 (1.00, 2.00)* | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | <0.001 |
| Nasal itch | 1.00 (1.00, 3.00)* | 1.00 (0.00, 2.00) | NS |
| TNSS | 6.00 (5.75, 7.00)* | 7.00 (7.00, 10.00) | <0.001 |
| Follow up (week 4) | |||
| Nasal obstruction | 1.00 (1.00, 2.00)* | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | <0.001 |
| Rhinorrhea | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00)* | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | <0.01 |
| Sneezing | 1.00 (1.00, 2.00)* | 3.00 (2.00, 3.00) | <0.001 |
| Nasal itch | 1.00 (0.00, 1.00)* | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00) | <0.01 |
| TNSS | 5.00 (4.00, 7.00)* | 8.00 (7.00, 10.00) | <0.001 |
| Follow up (week 8) | |||
| Nasal obstruction | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00) | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | <0.001 |
| Rhinorrhea | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | NS |
| Sneezing | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00)* | 3.00 (2.00, 3.00) | <0.01 |
| Nasal itch | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00) | 1.00 (1.00, 2.00) | NS |
| TNSS | 7.00 (6.00, 8.00)* | 8.00 (7.00, 10.00) | <0.01 |
| Follow up (week 12) | |||
| Nasal obstruction | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00) | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | <0.05 |
| Rhinorrhea | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 3.00 (2.00, 3.00) | NS |
| Sneezing | 3.00 (2.00, 2.00) | 3.00 (2.00, 3.00) | NS |
| Nasal itch | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00) | 2.00 (1.00, 2.00) | NS |
| TNSS | 8.00 (7.00, 10.00) | 9.00 (8.00, 9.00) | NS |
| Follow up (week 16) | |||
| Nasal obstruction | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | NS |
| Rhinorrhea | 2.00 (2.00, 2.25) | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | NS |
| Sneezing | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | 2.00 (2.00, 3.00) | NS |
| Nasal itch | 1.00 (1.00, 2.00) | 1.00 (1.00, 2.00) | NS |
| TNSS | 8.00 (7.00, 10.00) | 9.00 (1.00, 10.00) | NS |
NS no significant difference
P values are for comparison of the real acupuncture group and the sham acupuncture group
*Statistically significant compared to the baseline score when assessed against the least significant difference (α: 0.05/3 = 0.0167)
Fig. 3Changes in the symptoms of TNSS, such as nasal obstruction (a), rhinorrhea (b), sneezing (c), and nasal itch (d), in the RAG and SAG. Asteriks indicate the time points in which there were significant differences between the two groups (P < 0.05). Only the upper or lower standard deviation is shown for clarity. TNSS total nasal symptom score; RAG real acupuncture group; SAG sham acupuncture group
RQLQ scores for sleep, non-nasal/eye symptoms, behavior and emotional function between the two groups (mean ± SD)
| Real acupuncture group | Sham acupuncture group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Sleep | 6.30 ± 3.10 | 7.06 ± 4.45 | NS |
| Non-nasal/eye | 14.17 ± 4.07 | 18.65 ± 4.90 | <0.001 |
| Behavior | 9.27 ± 2.98 | 12..7 ± 3.36 | <0.01 |
| Emotional function | 5.73 ± 2.42 | 7.71 ± 2.45 | <0.001 |
| Sleep | 5.93 ± 3.34 | 7.36 ± 4.56 | NS |
| Non-nasal/eye | 12.93 ± 3.53 | 20.74 ± 5.37 | <0.001 |
| Behavior | 8.17 ± 3.02 | 12.20 ± 3.65 | <0.001 |
| Emotional function | 4.03 ± 1.61 | 7.13 ± 2.91 | <0.001 |
| Sleep | 7.47 ± 3.76 | 9.00 ± 4.22 | NS |
| Non-nasal/eye | 15.77 ± 4.67 | 20.13 ± 5.49 | <0.01 |
| Behavior | 11.77 ± 3.10 | 12.45 ± 2.82 | NS |
| Emotional function | 5.73 ± 2.00 | 7.26 ± 2.65 | <0.05 |
| Sleep | 8.07 ± 2.89 | 9.00 ± 4.22 | NS |
| Non-nasal/eye | 18.27 ± 4.65 | 20.13 ± 5.49 | NS |
| Behavior | 11.27 ± 2.80 | 12.45 ± 2.81 | NS |
| Emotional function | 6.60 ± 2.30 | 7.26 ± 2.65 | NS |
| Sleep | 8.07 ± 3.36 | 9.00 ± 4.17 | NS |
| Non-nasal/eye | 18.07 ± 4.77 | 20.48 ± 4.93 | NS |
| Behavior | 10.93 ± 3.02 | 12.00 ± 3.63 | NS |
| Emotional function | 7.23 ± 2.34 | 7.62 ± 2.78 | NS |
NS no significant difference, RQLQ Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire
P values are for comparison of values in the real acupuncture group and sham acupuncture group
Fig. 4The changes in the TNSS and RQLQ in the RAG and SAG. Asteriks indicate the time points with significant differences between the two groups (*: P < 0.05). Only the upper or lower standard deviation is shown for clarity. TNSS total nasal symptom score. RQLQ Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire; RAG real acupuncture group; SAG sham acupuncture group