Auricular point acupressure for older adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1093/pm/pnaf035
Jennifer Kawi, Chao Hsing Yeh, Nada Lukkahatai, Hulin Wu, Natalia E Morone, Ronald Glick, Elizabeth A Schlenk, Claudia Campbell, Johannes Thrul, Xinran Huang, Hongyu Wang, Hejingzi Monica Jia, Paul Christo, Constance Johnson
{"title":"Auricular point acupressure for older adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Jennifer Kawi, Chao Hsing Yeh, Nada Lukkahatai, Hulin Wu, Natalia E Morone, Ronald Glick, Elizabeth A Schlenk, Claudia Campbell, Johannes Thrul, Xinran Huang, Hongyu Wang, Hejingzi Monica Jia, Paul Christo, Constance Johnson","doi":"10.1093/pm/pnaf035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Efficacious modalities are limited in chronic low back pain (cLBP). We determined the efficacy of auricular point acupressure (APA) in older adults with cLBP.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>3-arm randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Baltimore, Maryland.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Participants, ≥60 years with cLBP, were randomized (1:1:1) to APA with ear points targeted to cLBP (T-APA, n = 92), points nontargeted to cLBP (NT-APA, n = 91), or waitlist education control (n = 89), and followed up to 6 months (6M). Participants in the APA groups received 4 weekly APA sessions; the education control group received 4 weekly educational sessions.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>APA.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Primary outcomes were pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and function (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 272 participants (174 women [64%]; mean [SD] age 70.0 [6.95] years; 62% non-White). Compared to control, the T-APA group had significant improvement on pain from baseline to postintervention and 1-month (1M) follow-up by 1.73 and 1.26 points (P ≤ .001) respectively. The NT-APA group achieved similar improvements in pain. The improvement in function by T-APA and NT-APA was significant at postintervention by 1.89 and 2.68 points (P = .04 and .004) respectively, minimal at 1M follow-up, but significant at 6M in both APA groups. There were no statistically significant differences in treatment responses between the APA groups. Both APA groups had higher responder rates in pain and function at postintervention and 1M follow-up compared to the control group (odds ratio ranged from 2.11 to 6.32). The APA effects were sustained at 6M follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>APA treatments significantly improved pain and function compared to control; effects were sustained at 6M. APA should be recommended as a nonpharmacologic therapy for older adults with cLBP.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration number: </strong>Trial registry: Clinicaltrials.gov; Trial ID: NCT03589703; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03589703.</p>","PeriodicalId":19744,"journal":{"name":"Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"515-526"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12405757/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnaf035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Efficacious modalities are limited in chronic low back pain (cLBP). We determined the efficacy of auricular point acupressure (APA) in older adults with cLBP.

Design: 3-arm randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Baltimore, Maryland.

Participants: Participants, ≥60 years with cLBP, were randomized (1:1:1) to APA with ear points targeted to cLBP (T-APA, n = 92), points nontargeted to cLBP (NT-APA, n = 91), or waitlist education control (n = 89), and followed up to 6 months (6M). Participants in the APA groups received 4 weekly APA sessions; the education control group received 4 weekly educational sessions.

Intervention: APA.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and function (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire).

Results: There were 272 participants (174 women [64%]; mean [SD] age 70.0 [6.95] years; 62% non-White). Compared to control, the T-APA group had significant improvement on pain from baseline to postintervention and 1-month (1M) follow-up by 1.73 and 1.26 points (P ≤ .001) respectively. The NT-APA group achieved similar improvements in pain. The improvement in function by T-APA and NT-APA was significant at postintervention by 1.89 and 2.68 points (P = .04 and .004) respectively, minimal at 1M follow-up, but significant at 6M in both APA groups. There were no statistically significant differences in treatment responses between the APA groups. Both APA groups had higher responder rates in pain and function at postintervention and 1M follow-up compared to the control group (odds ratio ranged from 2.11 to 6.32). The APA effects were sustained at 6M follow-up.

Conclusions: APA treatments significantly improved pain and function compared to control; effects were sustained at 6M. APA should be recommended as a nonpharmacologic therapy for older adults with cLBP.

Clinical trial registration number: Trial registry: Clinicaltrials.gov; Trial ID: NCT03589703; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03589703.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
耳穴按摩治疗老年慢性腰痛:一项随机对照试验。
目的:慢性腰痛(cLBP)的有效治疗方法有限。我们确定了耳穴穴位按压(APA)对老年cLBP患者的疗效。方法:年龄≥60岁的cLBP患者,随机(1:1:1)分为针对cLBP的APA耳穴(T-APA, n = 92)、针对cLBP非耳穴(NT-APA, n = 91)或候补教育对照组(n = 89),随访6个月(6M)。APA组的参与者每周接受4次APA治疗;教育对照组每周接受4次教育。主要结局是疼痛和功能。结果:272名受试者(174名女性,占64%);平均[SD]年龄70.0[6.95]岁;62%的白人)。与对照组相比,T-APA组从基线到干预后和随访1个月(1M)疼痛分别改善1.73点和1.26点(p≤0.001)。NT-APA组在疼痛方面也取得了类似的改善。T-APA和NT-APA对功能的改善在干预后分别为1.89和2.68点(p = 0.04和0.004),在随访1M时最小,但在随访6M时两组均有显著性改善。两组间治疗反应无统计学差异。与对照组相比,两组在干预后和1M随访时的疼痛和功能应答率均较高(优势比为2.11至6.32)。APA的效果在6个月的随访中持续。结论:与对照组相比,APA治疗可显著改善疼痛和功能;效果持续到6M。应推荐APA作为老年cLBP患者的非药物治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Medicine
Pain Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
3.20%
发文量
187
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Pain Medicine is a multi-disciplinary journal dedicated to pain clinicians, educators and researchers with an interest in pain from various medical specialties such as pain medicine, anaesthesiology, family practice, internal medicine, neurology, neurological surgery, orthopaedic spine surgery, psychiatry, and rehabilitation medicine as well as related health disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, nursing, nurse practitioner, physical therapy, and integrative health.
期刊最新文献
Emotional Awareness and Expression Therapy for Migraine: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial. Graded chronic pain scale revised: validation in a sample of the general German Population. Integrated Nurse Care Management to Reduce Pain Interference for Primary Care Patients in Rural Communities: Results from a Pilot Study. Qualitative analysis of lessons learned by master's-level behavioral health practitioners for remote delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy-based treatment for chronic pain. CMS Proposed Restrictions on Peripheral Nerve Blocks and Procedures for Chronic Pain: Clinical, Ethical, and Policy Implications for Millions of Americans.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1