Trial Outcomes & Findings for Acupuncture Approaches for Chronic Pain (NCT NCT02456727)
NCT ID: NCT02456727
Last Updated: 2020-09-18
Results Overview
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a self-reported questionnaire that serves as the primary measure of how much the participants' pain interferes with daily life. Pain interference is calculated using 7 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 7, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. Investigators measured improvement in BPI pain interference from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
COMPLETED
NA
779 participants
Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)
2020-09-18
Participant Flow
Participants were referred by their primary care providers (PCPs) from their participating health care center. For patients who met the eligibility criteria, PCPs completed a study-specific referral form and obtained permission to contact the patient by phone. Participants were then contacted by the study staff and screened for eligibility.
Participants were screened by phone and completed an oral consent. They were mailed a treatment consent form and told to contact the study team in order to complete the baseline and receive their treatment arm. Several participants were excluded for various reasons including ineligibility and declining participation.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture
Participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture
Participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
389
|
390
|
|
Overall Study
Initiated Treatment
|
346
|
360
|
|
Overall Study
6 Week
|
298
|
320
|
|
Overall Study
12 Week
|
295
|
310
|
|
Overall Study
24 Week
|
280
|
284
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
280
|
284
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
109
|
106
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture
Participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture
Participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
|
63
|
65
|
|
Overall Study
Death
|
2
|
1
|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
1
|
10
|
|
Overall Study
Never Initiated Treatment
|
43
|
30
|
Baseline Characteristics
Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture
n=389 Participants
Participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture
n=390 Participants
Participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Total
n=779 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
|
316 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
303 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
619 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
|
73 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
87 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
160 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Age, Continuous
|
54.19 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.77 • n=389 Participants
|
55.44 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.20 • n=390 Participants
|
54.80 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.49 • n=779 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
Median
|
54.93 years
n=389 Participants
|
55.42 years
n=390 Participants
|
55.19 years
n=779 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
315 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
312 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
627 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
74 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
78 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
152 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
|
219 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
224 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
443 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
|
168 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
159 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
327 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
2 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
15 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
37 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
6 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
141 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
134 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
275 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
46 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
58 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
104 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
43 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
53 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
96 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
138 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
117 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
255 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
389 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
390 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
779 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Spoken Language
English
|
292 Participants
n=372 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
290 Participants
n=371 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
582 Participants
n=743 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
|
Spoken Language
Spanish
|
79 Participants
n=372 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
81 Participants
n=371 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
160 Participants
n=743 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
|
Spoken Language
Other
|
1 Participants
n=372 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
0 Participants
n=390 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
1 Participants
n=762 Participants • Participants were told to select their preferred language. Some participants declined to select one language.
|
|
Working Status
Unable to Work Due to Disability
|
143 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
147 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
290 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Working Status
Unemployed
|
58 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
44 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
102 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Working Status
Other
|
188 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
199 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
387 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Household Income Support
No support
|
114 Participants
n=384 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
103 Participants
n=382 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
217 Participants
n=766 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
|
Household Income Support
Any Support
|
270 Participants
n=384 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
279 Participants
n=382 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
549 Participants
n=766 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
|
Participants Receiving Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI)
Not Receiving SSI
|
212 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
173 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
385 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Participants Receiving Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI)
Receiving SSI
|
177 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
217 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
394 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Participants with Health Insurance Coverage
Medicaid
|
301 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
288 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
589 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Participants with Health Insurance Coverage
Private
|
76 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
88 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
164 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Participants with Health Insurance Coverage
None
|
8 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
8 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
16 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Participants with Health Insurance Coverage
Other
|
4 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Annual Household Income
Less than $20,000
|
183 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
179 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
362 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Annual Household Income
$20-$29,000
|
40 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
44 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
84 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Annual Household Income
$30-$39,000
|
41 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
30 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
71 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Annual Household Income
$40-$49,000
|
20 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
21 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
41 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Annual Household Income
Greater than $50,000
|
22 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
36 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
58 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Annual Household Income
Don't know / Refused
|
83 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
80 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
163 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Participants Reporting Opioid Use at baseline
No
|
275 Participants
n=381 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
291 Participants
n=384 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
566 Participants
n=765 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
|
Participants Reporting Opioid Use at baseline
Yes
|
106 Participants
n=381 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
93 Participants
n=384 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
199 Participants
n=765 Participants • Row population differs from the overall because some participants declined to answer this question.
|
|
Condition Participants were Referred to the Study for
Back pain
|
261 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
273 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
534 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Condition Participants were Referred to the Study for
Neck pain
|
70 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
68 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
138 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Condition Participants were Referred to the Study for
Osteoarthritis
|
94 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
112 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
206 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Condition Participants were Referred to the Study for
Multiple conditions
|
77 Participants
n=389 Participants
|
91 Participants
n=390 Participants
|
168 Participants
n=779 Participants
|
|
Depression Score as Measured by Patient Health Questionnaire 9 question (PHQ-9) Score
|
8.75 Score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.02 • n=389 Participants
|
8.74 Score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.07 • n=390 Participants
|
8.74 Score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.04 • n=779 Participants
|
|
Patient Reported Global Health Score as Measured by The PROMIS-10
Poor
|
80 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
85 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
165 Participants
n=778 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
|
Patient Reported Global Health Score as Measured by The PROMIS-10
Fair
|
152 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
145 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
297 Participants
n=778 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
|
Patient Reported Global Health Score as Measured by The PROMIS-10
Good
|
111 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
104 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
215 Participants
n=778 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
|
Patient Reported Global Health Score as Measured by The PROMIS-10
Very good
|
33 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
42 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
75 Participants
n=778 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
|
Patient Reported Global Health Score as Measured by The PROMIS-10
Excellent
|
13 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
13 Participants
n=389 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
26 Participants
n=778 Participants • 1 participant in the individual arm declined to answer this question.
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a self-reported questionnaire that serves as the primary measure of how much the participants' pain interferes with daily life. Pain interference is calculated using 7 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 7, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. Investigators measured improvement in BPI pain interference from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=389 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=390 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Intent to Treat Model)
Baseline
|
6.0 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.7
|
6.1 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.7
|
|
Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 12
|
5.1 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 3.0
|
4.8 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 3.1
|
|
Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 24
|
5.3 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.9
|
5.1 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 3.1
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window))Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a self-reported questionnaire that serves as the primary measure of how much your pain interferes with your life. Pain interference is calculated using 7 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 7, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. We measured improvement in BPI pain interference from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=220 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=230 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Per Protocol Model)
Baseline
|
5.8 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.6
|
5.8 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.8
|
|
Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Per Protocol Model)
Week 12
|
4.6 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.9
|
4.5 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 3.1
|
|
Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Per Protocol Model)
Week 24
|
5.1 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 3.0
|
4.7 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 3.1
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (End of Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a participant reported questionnaire that serves as the primary measure of how much your pain interferes with your life. It is a quality of life measure. Pain interference is calculated using 7 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 7, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher score indicates your pain interference is worse. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced improvement in their pain interference from baseline to the end of treatment window (week 12). 30% improvement is a decrease of \>=2 points on the BPI from baseline to the end of treatment window (week 12). A 30% decrease is considered a clinically significant improvement in pain. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 12 questionnaire were analyzed.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=271 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=288 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
>=30% Improvement in Pain Interference
|
82 Participants
|
108 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
<30% Improvement in Pain Interference
|
189 Participants
|
180 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (End of Treatment)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a self-reported questionnaire that serves as the primary measure of how much your pain interferes with your life. It is a quality of life measure. Pain interference is calculated using 7 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 7, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher score indicates your pain interference is worse. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced improvement in pain interference from baseline to the end of treatment window (week 12). 30% improvement is a decrease of \>=2 points on the BPI from baseline to the end of treatment window (week 12). A 30% decrease is considered a clinically significant improvement in pain. Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only participants who completed a week 12 questionnaire were analyzed.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=189 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=204 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
>=30% Improvement in Pain Interference
|
65 Participants
|
81 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
<30% Improvement in Pain Interference
|
124 Participants
|
123 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a self-reported questionnaire that serves as the primary measure of how much your pain interferes with your life. It is a quality of life measure. Pain interference is calculated using 7 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 7, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher score indicates your pain interference is worse. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced improvement in pain interference from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). 30% improvement is a decrease of \>=2 points on the BPI from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 24 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=268 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=283 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
>=30% Improvement in Pain Interference
|
77 Participants
|
99 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
<30% Improvement in Pain Interference
|
191 Participants
|
184 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, lost to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a self-reported questionnaire that serves as the primary measure of how much your pain interferes with your life. It is a quality of life measure. Pain interference is calculated using 7 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 7, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher score indicates your pain interference is worse. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced improvement in pain interference from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment). 30% improvement is a decrease of \>=2 points on the BPI from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment). The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who have been randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only patients who completed a week 24 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=182 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=197 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
>=30% Improvement in Pain Interference
|
56 Participants
|
78 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Pain Interference as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
<30% Improvement in Pain Interference
|
126 Participants
|
119 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a self-reported questionnaire that serves as the measure of how severe your pain is. Pain severity is calculated using 4 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and then divided by 4, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. We measured improvement in BPI pain severity from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of intent to treat is anyone who intended to receive treatment; in our case, it is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=389 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=390 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Intent to Treat Model)
Baseline
|
6.8 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.8
|
6.8 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.9
|
|
Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 12
|
5.7 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.5
|
5.4 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.7
|
|
Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 24
|
5.9 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.6
|
5.8 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.6
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a self-reported questionnaire that serves as the measure of how severe your pain is. Pain severity is calculated using 4 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 4, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. We measured improvement in BPI pain severity from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=220 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=230 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Per Protocol Model)
Baseline
|
6.7 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 1.8
|
6.8 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 1.9
|
|
Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Per Protocol Model)
Week 12
|
5.3 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.4
|
5.1 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.7
|
|
Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Per Protocol Model)
Week 24
|
5.7 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.6
|
5.6 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.5
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (End of Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a participant reported questionnaire that serves as the measure of how severe your pain is. Pain severity is calculated using 4 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 4, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced an improvement in their pain severity from baseline to the end of treatment window (week 12). 30% improvement is a decrease of \>=2 points on the BPI from baseline to the end of treatment window (week 12). A 30% decrease in pain severity is considered a clinically significant improvement in pain. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 12 questionnaire were analyzed.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=285 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=299 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
>=30% Improvement in Pain Severity
|
87 Participants
|
104 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
<30% Improvement in Pain Severity
|
198 Participants
|
195 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (End of Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a participant reported questionnaire that serves as the measure of how severe your pain is. Pain severity is calculated using 4 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 4, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced an improvement in their pain severity from baseline to the end of treatment window (week 12). 30% improvement is a decrease of \>=2 points on the BPI from baseline to the end of treatment window (week 12). A 30% decrease in pain severity is considered a clinically significant improvement in pain. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only participants who completed a week 12 questionnaire were analyzed.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=201 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=212 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
>=30% Improvement in Pain Severity
|
73 Participants
|
83 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
<30% Improvement in Pain Severity
|
128 Participants
|
129 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, lost to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a participant reported questionnaire that serves as the measure of how severe your pain is. Pain severity is calculated using 4 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 4, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced an improvement in their pain severity from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). 30% improvement is a decrease of \>=2 points on the BPI from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). A 30% decrease in pain severity is considered a clinically significant improvement in pain. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 24 questionnaire were analyzed.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=285 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=291 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
>=30% Improvement in Pain Severity
|
65 Participants
|
74 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
<30% Improvement in Pain Severity
|
220 Participants
|
217 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) short form, is a participant reported questionnaire that serves as the measure of how severe your pain is. Pain severity is calculated using 4 questions that range from a score of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). The scores are added and divided by 4, therefore final scores can range from 0 - 10. Having a higher mean score indicates your pain severity is worse. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced an improvement in their pain severity from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). 30% improvement is a decrease of \>=2 points on the BPI from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). A 30% decrease in pain severity is considered a clinically significant improvement in pain. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who have been randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only patients who completed a week 24 questionnaire were analyzed.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=196 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=202 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
>=30% Improvement in Pain Severity
|
48 Participants
|
56 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Pain Severity as Measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
<30% Improvement in Pain Severity
|
148 Participants
|
146 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) is a self-reported questionnaire that indicates if a participant has perceived a change in their condition after having some sort of treatment. In this case, we evaluated whether the participants experienced a positive change after receiving treatment, a decrease in their pain, from baseline (before receiving treatment) to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The PGIC is scored from 0 (much better) to 10 (much worse). A higher score indicates that a participant has felt worse since starting treatment. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=389 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=390 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 12 and Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 12
|
3.0 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 1.9
|
2.8 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 1.9
|
|
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 12 and Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 24
|
3.6 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.3
|
3.3 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.2
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 12 (end of treatment window), and week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) is a self-reported questionnaire that indicates if a participant has perceived a change in their condition after having some sort of treatment. In this case, we evaluated whether the participants experienced a positive change after receiving treatment, a decrease in their pain, from baseline (before receiving treatment) to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The PGIC is scored from 0 (much better) to 10 (much worse). A higher score indicates that a participant has felt worse since starting treatment. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=220 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=230 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 12 and Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
Week 12
|
2.6 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 1.9
|
2.5 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 1.9
|
|
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 12 and Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
Week 24
|
3.3 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.3
|
3.0 Units on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.2
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 12 (End of Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) is a self-reported questionnaire that indicates if a patient has perceived a change in their condition after having some sort of treatment. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced improvement. Respondent data for the PGIC is scored using one question that ranges from 0 (no change or the condition got worse) to 7 (a great deal better). Improvement is defined as a score of \>=6 points on the PGIC at week 12 (end of treatment window) as reported by the participants. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 12 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=294 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=309 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement as Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
Improved (>=6 point score)
|
103 Participants
|
116 Participants
|
|
Improvement as Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
Not improved (<=5 point score)
|
191 Participants
|
193 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 12 (End of Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) is a self-reported questionnaire that indicates if a patient has perceived a change in their condition after having some sort of treatment. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced improvement. Respondent data for the PGIC is scored using one question that ranges from 0 (no change or the condition got worse) to 7 (a great deal better). Improvement is defined as a score of \>=6 points on the PGIC at week 12 (end of treatment window) as reported by the participants. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only participants who completed a week 12 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=206 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=219 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement as Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
Improved (>=6 point score)
|
89 Participants
|
95 Participants
|
|
Improvement as Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
Not improved (<=5 point score)
|
117 Participants
|
124 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment WindowPopulation: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) is a self-reported questionnaire that indicates if a patient has perceived a change in their condition after having some sort of treatment. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced improvement. Respondent data for the PGIC is scored using one question that ranges from 0 (no change or the condition got worse) to 7 (a great deal better). Improvement is defined as a score of \>=6 points on the PGIC at week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window) as reported by the participants. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 24 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=290 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=298 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement as Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
Improved (>=6 point score)
|
76 Participants
|
75 Participants
|
|
Improvement as Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
Not improved (<=5 point score)
|
214 Participants
|
223 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 24 (12 Week After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) is a self-reported questionnaire that indicates if a patient has perceived a change in their condition after having some sort of treatment. Respondent data is used for this analysis which shows whether participants experienced improvement. Respondent data for the PGIC is scored using one question that ranges from 0 (no change or the condition got worse) to 7 (a great deal better). Improvement is defined as a score of \>=6 points on the PGIC at week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window) as reported by the participants. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only participants who completed a week 24 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=198 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=207 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement as Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
Improved (>=6 point score)
|
62 Participants
|
68 Participants
|
|
Improvement as Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
Not improved (<=5 point score)
|
136 Participants
|
139 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window))Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. It consists of 10 questions, for physical health only 4 questions are used, scoring for physical health can range from 4-20 (Raw score), the higher the score the better the outcome. The raw scores are changed into T-scores that range from 16.2-67.7. For this measure, we collected physical health scores from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=389 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=390 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participant Physical Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Intent to Treat Model)
Baseline
|
34.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.2
|
34.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.7
|
|
Participant Physical Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 12
|
38.5 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.4
|
38.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.3
|
|
Participant Physical Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 24
|
37.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.7
|
37.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.5
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. It consists of 10 questions, for physical health only 4 questions are used, scoring for physical health can range from 4-20 (Raw score), the higher the score the better the outcome. The raw scores are changed into T-scores that range from 16.2-67.7. For this measure, we collected physical health scores from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data..
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=220 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=230 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participant Physical Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Per Protocol Model)
Baseline
|
35.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.1
|
35.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.6
|
|
Participant Physical Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Per Protocol Model)
Week 12
|
39.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.3
|
39.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.1
|
|
Participant Physical Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Per Protocol Model)
Week 24
|
38.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.7
|
38.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.1
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (End of treatment window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. The physical health score is calculated using 4 questions on the PROMIS-10 that range from 1 to 5. The score is then converted into a T score which can range from 16.2 to 67.7. The higher the score the better your physical health is. Improvement is categorized as an increase in the PROMIS-10 T-score from baseline to week 12 (end of treatment window), a \>=2-point increase is considered a 30% improvement. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who have been randomized into treatment. Only patients who completed a week 12 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=291 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=306 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Physical Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
>=2 point Improvement in Physical health
|
173 Participants
|
193 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Physical Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
<2 point Improvement in Physical health
|
118 Participants
|
113 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (End of Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. The physical health score is calculated using 4 questions on the PROMIS-10 that range from 1 to 5. The score is then converted into a T score which can range from 16.2 to 67.7. The higher the score the better your physical health is. Improvement is categorized as an increase in the PROMIS-10 T-score from baseline to week 12 (end of treatment window), a \>=2-point increase is considered a 30% improvement. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who have been randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only patients who completed a week 12 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=204 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=217 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Physical Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
>=2 point Improvement in Physical health
|
125 Participants
|
147 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Physical Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
<2 point Improvement in Physical health
|
79 Participants
|
70 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. The physical health score is calculated using 4 questions on the PROMIS-10 that range from 1 to 5. The score is then converted into a T score which can range from 16.2 to 67.7. The higher the score the better your physical health is. Improvement is categorized as an increase in the PROMIS-10 T-score from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window), a \>=2-point increase is considered a 30% improvement. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 24 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=283 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=296 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Physical Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
>=2 point Improvement in Physical health
|
142 Participants
|
164 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Physical Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
<2 point Improvement in Physical health
|
141 Participants
|
132 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. The physical health score is calculated using 4 questions on the PROMIS-10 that range from 1 to 5. The score is then converted into a T score which can range from 16.2 to 67.7. The higher the score the better your physical health is. Improvement is categorized as a \>= 2-point increase in the PROMIS-10 T-score from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only participants who completed a week 24 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=193 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=205 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Physical Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
>=2 point Improvement in Physical health
|
96 Participants
|
121 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Physical Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
<2 point Improvement in Physical health
|
97 Participants
|
84 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. It consists of 10 questions, for mental health only 4 questions are used, scoring for mental health can range from 4-20 (Raw score), the higher the score the better the outcome. The raw scores are changed into T-scores that range from 21.2-67.6. For this measure, we collected mental health scores from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=389 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=390 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participant Mental Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Intent to Treat Model)
Baseline
|
42.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.8
|
42.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.6
|
|
Participant Mental Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 12
|
43.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.4
|
44.5 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.6
|
|
Participant Mental Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Intent to Treat Model)
Week 24
|
43.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.9
|
44.1 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.4
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. It consists of 10 questions, for mental health only 4 questions are used, scoring for mental health can range from 4-20 (Raw score), the higher the score the better the outcome. The raw scores are changed into T-scores that range from 21.2-67.6. For this measure, we collected mental health scores from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=220 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=230 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participant Mental Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Per Protocol Model)
Baseline
|
43.6 T-Score
Standard Deviation 9.6
|
43.5 T-Score
Standard Deviation 9.7
|
|
Participant Mental Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Per Protocol Model)
Week 12
|
44.4 T-Score
Standard Deviation 9.2
|
45.2 T-Score
Standard Deviation 9.3
|
|
Participant Mental Health Score as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) (Per Protocol Model)
Week 24
|
44.1 T-Score
Standard Deviation 9.7
|
45.0 T-Score
Standard Deviation 9.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (End of Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. The mental health score is calculated using 4 questions on the PROMIS-10 that range from 1 to 5. The score is then converted into a T score which can range from 21.2 to 67.6. The higher the score the better your mental health is. Improvement is categorized as an increase in the PROMIS-10 T-score from baseline to week 12 (end of treatment window), a \>=5-point increase is what we used to measure improvement. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 12 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=288 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=304 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Mental Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
>=5 point Improvement in Mental health
|
75 Participants
|
84 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Mental Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 12 (Intent to Treat Model)
<5 point Improvement in Mental health
|
213 Participants
|
220 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (End of Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. The mental health score is calculated using 4 questions on the PROMIS-10 that range from 1 to 5. The score is then converted into a T score which can range from 21.2 to 67.6. The higher the score the better your mental health is. Improvement is categorized as an increase in the PROMIS-10 T-score from baseline to week 12 (end of treatment window), a \>=5-point increase is what we used to measure improvement. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who have been randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only patients who completed a week 12 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=203 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=215 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Mental Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
>=5 point Improvement in Mental health
|
48 Participants
|
57 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Mental Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 12 (Per Protocol Model)
<5 point Improvement in Mental health
|
155 Participants
|
158 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. The mental health score is calculated using 4 questions on the PROMIS-10 that range from 1 to 5. The score is then converted into a T-score which can range from 21.2 to 67.6. The higher the score the better your mental health is. Improvement is categorized as an increase in the PROMIS-10 T-score from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window), a \>=5-point increase is what we used to measure improvement. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Only participants who completed a week 24 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=285 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=295 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Mental Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
>=5 point Improvement in Mental health
|
72 Participants
|
86 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Mental Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 24 (Intent to Treat Model)
<5 point Improvement in Mental health
|
213 Participants
|
209 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for each time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer a question. If a participant declined to answer a question their score could not be calculated which excludes them.
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) is a publically available questionnaire that allows for the measurement of quality of life for chronic conditions. The mental health score is calculated using 4 questions on the PROMIS-10 that range from 1 to 5. The score is then converted into a T-score which can range from 21.2 to 67.6. The higher the score the better your mental health is. Improvement is categorized as an increase in the PROMIS-10 T-score from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window), a \>=5-point increase is what we used to measure improvement. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only participants who completed a week 24 questionnaire were included in the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=197 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=204 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Mental Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
>=5 point Improvement in Mental health
|
45 Participants
|
59 Participants
|
|
Improvement in Mental Health as Measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) at Week 24 (Per Protocol Model)
<5 point Improvement in Mental health
|
152 Participants
|
145 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for this time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer this question. Only participants who responded to having taken prescription opioids were included in the analysis.
Participants were asked whether they took any opioid medication within the last week. We compared self-reported prescription opioid use within a week of their baseline and week 12 questionnaires. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who have been randomized into treatment. Only participants who report having an opioid prescription are included in the analysis therefore if the participant did not have an opioid prescription they were excluded from the analysis. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=389 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=390 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participants Who Reported Use of Prescription Opioids in the Last Week (Intent to Treat Model)
Opioid use within a week of Baseline
|
85 Participants
|
78 Participants
|
|
Participants Who Reported Use of Prescription Opioids in the Last Week (Intent to Treat Model)
Opioid use within a week of Week 12
|
53 Participants
|
55 Participants
|
|
Participants Who Reported Use of Prescription Opioids in the Last Week (Intent to Treat Model)
Opioid use within a week of Week 24
|
58 Participants
|
56 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for this time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer this question. Only participants who responded to having taken prescription opioids were included in the analysis.
Participants were asked whether they took any opioid medication within the last week. We compared self-reported prescription opioid use within a week of their baseline and week 12 questionnaires. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who have been randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Only participants who report having an opioid prescription are included in the analysis therefore if the participant did not have an opioid prescription they were excluded from the analysis. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=220 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=230 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participants Who Reported Use of Prescription Opioids in the Last Week (Per Protocol Model)
Opioid use within a week of Baseline
|
42 Participants
|
39 Participants
|
|
Participants Who Reported Use of Prescription Opioids in the Last Week (Per Protocol Model)
Opioid use within a week of week 12
|
33 Participants
|
32 Participants
|
|
Participants Who Reported Use of Prescription Opioids in the Last Week (Per Protocol Model)
Opioid use within a week of week 24
|
34 Participants
|
35 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for this time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer this question. Only participants who responded to having taken prescription opioids were included in the analysis.
Participants were asked whether they took any opioid medication within the last week. If they did take any opioids in the last week we asked how many days they took their opioid medication. We collected data on the mean number of days participants took prescription opioid medication from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=389 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=390 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Days Participants Reported Using Prescription Opioids in the Last 7 Days (Intent to Treat Model)
Baseline
|
4.3 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 3.5
|
5.1 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 2.8
|
|
Number of Days Participants Reported Using Prescription Opioids in the Last 7 Days (Intent to Treat Model)
12 weeks
|
4.2 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 2.8
|
4.9 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 3.6
|
|
Number of Days Participants Reported Using Prescription Opioids in the Last 7 Days (Intent to Treat Model)
24 weeks
|
4.5 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 2.9
|
5.1 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 2.8
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)Population: The data differs in participants from the overall data due to a few factors. Some participants did not complete the questionnaires for this time point. This may have been due to withdrawal, loss to follow up, or declining to answer this question. Only participants who responded to having taken prescription opioids were included in the analysis.
Participants were asked whether they took any opioid medication within the last week. If they did take any opioids in the last week we asked how many days they took their opioid medication. We collected data on the mean number of days participants took prescription opioid medication from baseline to week 24 (12 weeks after treatment window). The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. Statistical analysis only performed on baseline and week 12 (end of treatment) data.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=220 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=230 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Days Participants Reported Using Prescription Opioids in the Last 7 Days (Per Protocol Model)
Baseline
|
4.0 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 2.9
|
4.7 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 3.0
|
|
Number of Days Participants Reported Using Prescription Opioids in the Last 7 Days (Per Protocol Model)
12 weeks
|
3.6 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 2.8
|
4.2 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 3.2
|
|
Number of Days Participants Reported Using Prescription Opioids in the Last 7 Days (Per Protocol Model)
24 weeks
|
4.1 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 3.0
|
5.0 Days of Opioid use
Standard Deviation 2.9
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6-Month Period Around Treatment Window (3 months pre- and 3 months post-treatment)Population: The analysis is limited to participants who have documented opioid prescriptions in EMR. A participant could have a prescription in the pre-treatment period, post-treatment period or both.
Milligrams of Morphine Equivalence (MME) is a value assigned to represent how strong an opioid is. It is determined by calculating a dose of morphine equivalent to the prescribed opioid. We compared the MME for participants who had Opioid prescriptions in their electronic medical records (EMR) during the 6 month period around treatment (3 months prior and post-treatment). A smaller MME indicates that the participant was using less medication. The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. The analysis is limited to participants who have documented opioid prescriptions in EMR. The change in MME was defined as post treatment minus pre treatment (in milligrams).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=96 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=95 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Participant Opioid Use in Milligrams of Morphine Equivalents (MME) Between 3 Months Pre and 3 Months Post-treatment Using Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Data (Intent to Treat Model)
|
0 Milligrams of Morphine Equivalents
Interval -3.0 to 8.8
|
0 Milligrams of Morphine Equivalents
Interval -12.8 to 3.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6-Month Period Around Treatment Window (3 months pre- and 3 months post-treatment)Population: The analysis is limited to participants who have documented opioid prescriptions in EMR. A participant could have a prescription in the pre-treatment period, post-treatment period or both.
Milligrams of Morphine Equivalence (MME) is a value assigned to represent how strong an opioid is. It is determined by calculating a dose of morphine equivalent to the prescribed opioid. We compared the MME of participants who had Opioid prescriptions in their electronic medical records (EMR) during the 6 month period around treatment (3 months pre- and 3 months post-treatment). A smaller MME indicates that the participant was using less medication. The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture. The analysis is limited to participants who have documented opioid prescriptions in EMR. The change in MME was defined as post treatment minus pre treatment (in milligrams).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=46 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=53 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Participant Opioid Use in Milligrams of Morphine Equivalents (MME) Between 3 Months Pre and 3 Months Post-treatment Using Electronic Record (EMR) Data (Per Protocol Model)
|
0 Milligrams of Morphine Equivalents
Interval -2.0 to 8.4
|
-0.5 Milligrams of Morphine Equivalents
Interval -13.3 to 1.2
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6-Month Period Around Treatment Window (3 months pre- and 3 months post-treatment)Population: This analysis includes all participants who were randomized. A participant could have a prescription in the pre-treatment period, post-treatment period or both. Thus the total number of participants analyzed is not equal to the sum of participants in pre- and post-treatment periods.
Participants' electronic medical records (EMR) were reviewed to see if they had a prescription for opioids during the 6-month period around their treatment window (3 months pre- and 3 months post-treatment). The definition of intent to treat is all participants who were randomized into treatment. There were 191 total participants that had "any documented opioid prescriptions in EMR.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=389 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=390 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participants With Opioid Prescription Within a 6 Month Period Around Treatment Window According to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Data (Intent to Treat Model)
Opioid Prescription 3 Months Pre-Treatment
|
51 Participants
|
64 Participants
|
|
Participants With Opioid Prescription Within a 6 Month Period Around Treatment Window According to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Data (Intent to Treat Model)
Opioid Prescription 3 Months Post-Treatment
|
57 Participants
|
43 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6-Month Period Around Treatment Window (3 months pre- and 3 months post-treatment)Population: The analysis includes all participants who attended \>= 8 sessions. A participant could have a prescription in the pre-treatment period, post-treatment period or both. Thus the total number of participants analyzed is not equal to the sum of participants in pre- and post-treatment periods.
Participants' electronic medical records (EMR) were reviewed to see if they had a prescription for opioids during the 6-month period around their treatment window (3 months pre- and 3 month post-treatment). The definition of Per Protocol is all participants who were randomized and who attended \>=8 sessions of acupuncture.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture ITT
n=220 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture ITT
n=230 Participants
All the participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participants With Opioid Prescription Within a 6 Month Period Around Treatment Window According to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Data ) (Per Protocol Model)
Opioid Prescription 3 Months Pre-Treatment
|
26 Participants
|
35 Participants
|
|
Participants With Opioid Prescription Within a 6 Month Period Around Treatment Window According to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Data ) (Per Protocol Model)
Opioid Prescription 3 Months Post-Treatment
|
28 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
Adverse Events
Group Acupuncture
Individual Acupuncture
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Group Acupuncture
n=389 participants at risk
Participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in a group acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
Individual Acupuncture
n=390 participants at risk
Participants who were randomized to receive acupuncture weekly in an individual acupuncture setting for 12 consecutive weeks.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Prolonged Musculo-Skeletal Pain
|
0.51%
2/389 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
0.51%
2/390 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Syncopal Symptoms
|
1.0%
4/389 • Number of events 4 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
0.00%
0/390 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Swelling
|
0.26%
1/389 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
0.77%
3/390 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Prolonged Bruising
|
0.26%
1/389 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
0.00%
0/390 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
|
Ear and labyrinth disorders
Loss of vaccaria seed in ear
|
0.26%
1/389 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
0.00%
0/390 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Syncope
|
0.26%
1/389 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
0.00%
0/390 • 24 weeks (12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks post-treatment)
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place