Clinical efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture at the motor area for Parkinson's disease with musculoskeletal pain: a randomized controlled trial

To observe the clinical efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) at the motor area for Parkinson's disease (PD) with musculoskeletal pain.

Fifty-eight patients with PD accompanied by musculoskeletal pain were randomly assigned to an EA group (29 cases, 1 case dropped out) and a sham EA group (29 cases, 1 case dropped out). The EA group was treated with EA at the motor area contralateral to the painful side (for bilateral pain, the left motor area was selected), using disperse-dense wave (2 Hz/20 Hz), with a current intensity of 1-2 mA, and needles were retained for 30 min. The sham EA group was treated with sham EA at non-acupoint area located 5-20 mm posterior to the motor area contralateral to the painful side. The connection mode was the same as that in the EA group, but no electrical current was delivered, and the needles were retained for 30 min. Both groups were treated once daily for 5 consecutive days. Visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, unified Parkinson's disease rating scale part Ⅲ (UPDRS-Ⅲ), 24-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-24), Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HAMA), and 39-item Parkinson's disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) scores were evaluated before treatment, immediately after treatment, and at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment completion in the two groups. Safety was also assessed in the two groups.

In both groups, VAS scores for pain after treatment and at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment completion were lower than those before treatment (P<0.01, P<0.05). VAS scores for pain in the EA group were lower than those in the sham EA group after treatment and at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment completion (P<0.05). In the EA group, UPDRS-Ⅲ, HAMD-24, HAMA, and PDQ-39 scores after treatment and at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment completion were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05, P<0.01). In the sham EA group, there were no statistically significant differences in UPDRS-Ⅲ, HAMD-24, HAMA, and PDQ-39 scores at any post-treatment time point compared with those before treatment (P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in UPDRS-Ⅲ, HAMD-24, HAMA, and PDQ-39 scores between the two groups at any post-treatment time point (P>0.05). No serious adverse events occurred during the trial.

EA at the motor area could reduce pain intensity in patients with PD accompanied by musculoskeletal pain, and improve pain-related motor symptoms, emotional status, and quality of life, with a favorable safety profile.