Randomized Comparative Trial for Persistent Pain in Spinal Cord Injury: Acupuncture vs Aspecific Needle Skin Stimulation
![]() |
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. |
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03170557 |
Recruitment Status :
Terminated
(After a first stop due to acupuncturists unavailability, the Covid-19 pandemic also impacted on the study time schedule for acupuncture administration and outcomes evaluation.)
First Posted : May 31, 2017
Last Update Posted : August 23, 2022
|
Tracking Information | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
First Submitted Date ICMJE | May 26, 2017 | ||||
First Posted Date ICMJE | May 31, 2017 | ||||
Last Update Posted Date | August 23, 2022 | ||||
Actual Study Start Date ICMJE | September 25, 2017 | ||||
Actual Primary Completion Date | January 25, 2019 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) | ||||
Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE |
Pain reduction [ Time Frame: Baseline (initial visit); session 6 (3 weeks); closing session 12 (6 weeks); follow-up 1 (3 weeks after closing session 12) ] Pain reduction of at least 2 points on the NRS scale
|
||||
Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE | Same as current | ||||
Change History | |||||
Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE |
|
||||
Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE | Same as current | ||||
Current Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures |
|
||||
Original Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures | Same as current | ||||
Descriptive Information | |||||
Brief Title ICMJE | Randomized Comparative Trial for Persistent Pain in Spinal Cord Injury: Acupuncture vs Aspecific Needle Skin Stimulation | ||||
Official Title ICMJE | A Randomized, Double Blind, Comparative Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Traditional Acupuncture vs Aspecific Needle Skin Stimulation for Persistent Pain in Subjects With Spinal Cord Injury | ||||
Brief Summary | Pain is one of the most common problems in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and persistent pain (that can be of different origin: nociceptive, neuropathic or mixed) is often poorly responsive to pharmacological therapy. Attention has been paid to the use of non-pharmacological therapies and interventional techniques in treating pain in other clinical conditions, and acupuncture has been the treatment most used and appreciated for its effectiveness. However, only few studies are available on the use of acupuncture in SCI patients. The present randomized, comparative trial aims to clarify the efficacy of traditional acupuncture vs. aspecific needle skin stimulation in treating persistent pain in subjects with spinal cord injury, by overcoming the biases reported in previous studies. | ||||
Detailed Description | About 67% of patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) experience painful symptoms in the course of life after injury and a third evaluates the pain as "severe", with a significant impact on quality of life, due to limitations in daily activities and autonomy. Persistent pain can be of different origin and may be nociceptive, neuropathic or mixed. However, it is often poorly responsive to pharmacological therapy. For some years, attention has been paid to the use of non-pharmacological therapies and interventional techniques in treating pain, and acupuncture has been the treatment most used and appreciated for its effectiveness. Only two studies on the use of acupuncture in SCI patients were included in the only Cochrane review available, dated 2014. Such studies, focusing on the painful shoulder syndrome and, therefore, on skeletal muscle pain, show a "non-superiority" of acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture treatment or Trager approach. However, the review does not come to any clear conclusions on the effectiveness of intervention because of the small number of cases and high risk of bias. A more recent primary, randomized, controlled trial on SCI patients, although focusing on chronic pain and on a single acupuncture technique, uses a questionable study design (cross-over) to demonstrate treatment efficacy. The present randomized, comparative trial aims to clarify the efficacy of traditional acupuncture vs. aspecific needle skin stimulation in treating persistent pain in subjects with spinal cord injury, by overcoming the biases reported in previous studies. Because of the intrinsic effects of sham acupuncture and, generally, of skin stimulation, a statistically significant change in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) measurements is expected even in the comparison group. To minimize this bias, which cannot be avoided, and to maintain the blindness of the patient as much as possible, the comparison group is treated by the insertion of needles in skin areas outside the metamer(s) affected by pain. Primary objective: - To evaluate the efficacy of traditional acupuncture vs. aspecific needle skin stimulation for persistent pain in subjects with spinal cord injury, at the end of treatment and at the 3 week follow-up. Secondary objectives:
Data concerning any adverse events, related to both experimental treatments of the trial, will also be collected. |
||||
Study Type ICMJE | Interventional | ||||
Study Phase ICMJE | Not Applicable | ||||
Study Design ICMJE | Allocation: Randomized Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Intervention Model Description: Randomized comparative trial Masking: Double (Participant, Outcomes Assessor)Masking Description: The statistician in charge for data analysis will be blind with respect to the identity of the assignment Groups (that will be coded so as not to be recognized) and will not be involved in filling data in the database to be analyzed. Primary Purpose: Treatment
|
||||
Condition ICMJE |
|
||||
Intervention ICMJE |
|
||||
Study Arms ICMJE |
|
||||
Publications * | Not Provided | ||||
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline. |
|||||
Recruitment Information | |||||
Recruitment Status ICMJE | Terminated | ||||
Actual Enrollment ICMJE |
68 | ||||
Original Estimated Enrollment ICMJE |
114 | ||||
Actual Study Completion Date ICMJE | February 25, 2019 | ||||
Actual Primary Completion Date | January 25, 2019 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) | ||||
Eligibility Criteria ICMJE | Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
|
||||
Sex/Gender ICMJE |
|
||||
Ages ICMJE | 18 Years and older (Adult, Older Adult) | ||||
Accepts Healthy Volunteers ICMJE | No | ||||
Contacts ICMJE | Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects | ||||
Listed Location Countries ICMJE | Italy | ||||
Removed Location Countries | |||||
Administrative Information | |||||
NCT Number ICMJE | NCT03170557 | ||||
Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE | CE-17017 | ||||
Has Data Monitoring Committee | No | ||||
U.S. FDA-regulated Product |
|
||||
IPD Sharing Statement ICMJE |
|
||||
Current Responsible Party | Montecatone Rehabilitation Institute S.p.A. | ||||
Original Responsible Party | Same as current | ||||
Current Study Sponsor ICMJE | Montecatone Rehabilitation Institute S.p.A. | ||||
Original Study Sponsor ICMJE | Same as current | ||||
Collaborators ICMJE | Associazione Medici Agopuntori Bolognesi (A.M.A.B.) | ||||
Investigators ICMJE |
|
||||
PRS Account | Montecatone Rehabilitation Institute S.p.A. | ||||
Verification Date | August 2022 | ||||
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP |