Objective

2

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

Methods

2

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.

Results

2

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.

Conclusion

2

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.