A comparison of jade moxibustion and traditional moxibustion in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Aug 2023
04 Aug 2023
Historique:
medline:
7
8
2023
pubmed:
6
8
2023
entrez:
6
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study was developed to compare the relative clinical efficacy of traditional moxibustion and Jade moxibustion in an effort to define the most effective approaches to treating knee osteoarthritis. In total, 94 patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to the traditional moxibustion (TM) and Jade moxibustion (JM) groups. For JM, a jade kneepad was preheated for 3 minutes via electrification, with the jade in the kneepad being pressed onto acupoints when reaching an initial temperature of 46°C. For patients in the TM group, moxa cones were applied to acupoints for treatment. In total, 12 treatments were performed for patients in each group, with treatment being conducted 3 times per week. Study outcomes included 36-item short-form health survey and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index knee stiffness scores. In addition, serum levels of osteoarthritis-related cytokines were measured. Overall, 89/94 patients completed this study, including 44 and 45 in the TM and JM groups, respectively. The 36-item short-form health survey physical functioning at weeks 12 and 24 (P = .033, 0.001), role-physical at weeks 4 and 24 (P = .030, 0.014), and role-emotional at week 4 (P = .045) were the only scores to differ significantly between the TM and JM groups. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index stiffness scores in the JM groups improved significantly relative to baseline at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 24 (all P < .01). The scores in the TM group differed significantly at all time points relative to baseline (all P < .01), with no differences between groups (all P > .05). Serum Interleukin-2 levels were lower in both groups (all P < .01). Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 only differed significantly for patients treated via JM (P < .05, P < .01), with the same also being true for Interleukin-1β and Interleukin-8 in the TM group (all P < .01). No significant differences in other cytokines were observed, nor did they differ significantly between groups (all P > .05). These results suggest that JM treatment can improve knee osteoarthritis patient quality of life, alleviating joint stiffness and restoring joint function with a level of efficacy comparable to TM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study was developed to compare the relative clinical efficacy of traditional moxibustion and Jade moxibustion in an effort to define the most effective approaches to treating knee osteoarthritis.
METHODS
METHODS
In total, 94 patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to the traditional moxibustion (TM) and Jade moxibustion (JM) groups. For JM, a jade kneepad was preheated for 3 minutes via electrification, with the jade in the kneepad being pressed onto acupoints when reaching an initial temperature of 46°C. For patients in the TM group, moxa cones were applied to acupoints for treatment. In total, 12 treatments were performed for patients in each group, with treatment being conducted 3 times per week. Study outcomes included 36-item short-form health survey and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index knee stiffness scores. In addition, serum levels of osteoarthritis-related cytokines were measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 89/94 patients completed this study, including 44 and 45 in the TM and JM groups, respectively. The 36-item short-form health survey physical functioning at weeks 12 and 24 (P = .033, 0.001), role-physical at weeks 4 and 24 (P = .030, 0.014), and role-emotional at week 4 (P = .045) were the only scores to differ significantly between the TM and JM groups. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index stiffness scores in the JM groups improved significantly relative to baseline at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 24 (all P < .01). The scores in the TM group differed significantly at all time points relative to baseline (all P < .01), with no differences between groups (all P > .05). Serum Interleukin-2 levels were lower in both groups (all P < .01). Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 only differed significantly for patients treated via JM (P < .05, P < .01), with the same also being true for Interleukin-1β and Interleukin-8 in the TM group (all P < .01). No significant differences in other cytokines were observed, nor did they differ significantly between groups (all P > .05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that JM treatment can improve knee osteoarthritis patient quality of life, alleviating joint stiffness and restoring joint function with a level of efficacy comparable to TM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37543785
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034537
pii: 00005792-202308040-00028
pmc: PMC10403001
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cytokines
0
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e34537Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2020 Sep 12;40(9):913-7
pubmed: 32959582
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Nov;27(11):1578-1589
pubmed: 31278997
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Aug 29;114(35):9332-9336
pubmed: 28808025
J Pain Res. 2018 Oct 05;11:2189-2196
pubmed: 30323653
Zhen Ci Yan Jiu. 2020 Jul 25;45(7):569-73
pubmed: 32705832
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Dec;68(12):1743-1750
pubmed: 27014966
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2019 Mar 14;2019:1291947
pubmed: 31001350
Acta Reumatol Port. 2018 Jul-Sep;43(3):182-200
pubmed: 30414367
Ann Rheum Dis. 1957 Dec;16(4):494-502
pubmed: 13498604
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2018 Mar;30(2):160-167
pubmed: 29227353
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 28;18(1):
pubmed: 33379288
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Apr;73(4):559-565
pubmed: 32004424
J Pain Res. 2021 Jul 19;14:2209-2228
pubmed: 34321920
Pain Res Manag. 2019 Dec 17;2019:2653792
pubmed: 31949547
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 25;9(7):e101973
pubmed: 25061882
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 21;12(12):e0189884
pubmed: 29267324
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Jun 20;13(6):
pubmed: 27331817
Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 Dec;101(Pt B):107598
pubmed: 34233864
J Rheumatol. 2022 Jun;49(6):615-621
pubmed: 35232805
Biomarkers. 2015;20(8):557-64
pubmed: 26848781
J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833-40
pubmed: 3068365
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2023 Apr;45(2):177-186
pubmed: 36453854
JAMA. 2018 Dec 25;320(24):2564-2579
pubmed: 30575881
Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247-63
pubmed: 8450681
Rheumatol Int. 2018 May;38(5):821-830
pubmed: 29164307
Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):1039-49
pubmed: 3741515
BMC Psychiatry. 2022 Jul 5;22(1):449
pubmed: 35790932
Eur J Med Res. 2022 Oct 17;27(1):204
pubmed: 36253872
J Tradit Chin Med. 2012 Dec;32(4):590-5
pubmed: 23427394
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Apr;99(17):e19845
pubmed: 32332638
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
pubmed: 1593914
Int Orthop. 2021 Feb;45(2):335-344
pubmed: 33078204
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2007 Nov;27(11):862-4
pubmed: 18085154
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:569523
pubmed: 25688277
Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Jun 24;16(3):R133
pubmed: 24962039
Qual Life Res. 2020 Sep;29(9):2395-2402
pubmed: 32314125
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Dec;49(3):337-350
pubmed: 31126594
Arthritis Rheum. 2000 Sep;43(9):1905-15
pubmed: 11014340
Theranostics. 2022 Jun 21;12(11):4866-4878
pubmed: 35836795
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2020 Jun 12;40(6):623-8
pubmed: 32538014
Guang Pu Xue Yu Guang Pu Fen Xi. 2012 Sep;32(9):2305-10
pubmed: 23240384
Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2021 Jul;39(7):492-498
pubmed: 34264766
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Sep 15;18(9):
pubmed: 30223558
JAMA. 2021 Feb 9;325(6):568-578
pubmed: 33560326
Maturitas. 2017 Jun;100:33-48
pubmed: 28539175