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.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

779 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Baseline, Week 12 (end of treatment window), and Week 24 (12 Weeks After Treatment Window)

Results posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 10 other events
Deaths: 2 deaths

Individual Acupuncture

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 5 other events
Deaths: 1 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

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

Diane McKee

Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Phone: 718-430-2952

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place