| [Background]Acupuncture in the treatment of allergic rhinitis has accumulated a wealth of experience, the main method including: ①sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation with acupuncture, ②verum acupuncture (VA). As the early clinical studies of more than 130,000 people shows "sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation with acupuncture" is more effective than traditional acupuncture. However, the more specific advantages should be identified and verified, and the security also need to be evaluated.[Objectives]To compare the efficacy of the treatment for allergic rhinitis, and the improvement of the quality of life between sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation with acupuncture and VA. Also to discuss the safety of the treatment and patient acceptance.[Methods]The study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT).80 patients were randomly allocated to the two groups (40 cases in each group) based on computer-generated randomization list. The source of cases were the patients in treatment of rhinitis at the acupuncture & moxibustion department in Xiyuan Hospital CACMS from March,2014 to March,2015. Patients in the intervention group received sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation with acupuncture. In the intervention group patients received 4 to 8 sessions over 4 weeks (1 to 2 times per week). The control group received VA. The main acu-points were yingxiang (LI20), yintang (GV29), fengchi (GB20), fengfu (GB16), zusanli (ST36). Adjunct acu-points are shangxing (GV23), hegu (LI4), heliao (LI19), feishu (BL13), pishu (BL20), shenshu (BL23), sanyinjiao (SP36). Doctor applied 2 main and 2 adjunct acu-points according to each patient’s syndrome differentiation and maintain the needles for 25 minutes. In the control group patients received 8 sessions over 4 weeks (2 times per week). Post-treatment follow-up was performed one month later. Evaluation criteria:rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ), visual analogue scale (VAS), rhinitis symptom score scale 2004. Based on the evaluation criteria, the efficacies of the treatment between the two groups were analyzed.[Outcomes]In the aspect of the quality of life, the change within each group had statistically significant difference (p<0.05). No matter what group, there was the obvious efficacy of the treatment. On the other hand, the changes in the improvement of the quality of life between two groups did not have statistically significant differences (p>0.05). The study results about the interaction of time factors and groups showed that these two groups had obvious statistically significant differences. And the improvements of the quality of life between two groups were close at last. It indicates the intervention group was advantageous in short-term care and was just the same as the control group in long-term care.In the aspect of rhinitis symptom score, the total validity were 60%the same for both intervention group and control group. After testing, there were not obvious statistically significant differences (p>0.05) and these two groups were the same in the improvement symptom. The change within each group, which had obvious efficacy of the treatment about the improvement of symptom (p<0.05). The changes between two groups, which did not have statistically significant differences (p>0.05). The efficacies of the improvement of symptom were the same in these two groups.In the aspect of VAS, within each group, which had obvious statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Between two groups, which had obvious statistically significant differences (p<0.05). The intervention group was more advantageous than the control group.In the aspect of post-treatment follow-up, the relapse rates between two groups did not have statistically significant differences (p>0.05). To compare with the base line data, these two groups had good results to reduce the relapse rates obviously.In the aspect of safety, there were two adverse reactions in the intervention group, but not serious to do special treatment. In the aspect of patient acceptance, these two groups were both over 80%, and the intervention group was slightly higher than the control group.[Conclusions]Both the intervention group and the control group have significant improvement of the symptoms and the quality of life in the long-term care. However, the advantage of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation with acupuncture is more predominant in short-term care, which more rapidly relieved symptoms and enhanced the quality of life.There is still no actually curable methods for allergic rhinitis so far. The Chinese medicine may bring the patients hope for the future. Although there is no evidence that acupuncture can cure the disease, it can indeed improve the symptoms and the quality of life. Compared with other treatments, the convenience and efficacy of acupuncture can not be neglected. |
PDF Full Text Request