The Effect of Chinemys reevesii Gray Pharmacopuncture for Women with Knee Osteoarthritis

Article information

Acupunct. 2015;32(3):163-173
1Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Meridian & Acupoint, College of Korean Medicine, Dong-Eui University
2Dongbee Korean Medical Clinic
*Corresponding author : Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Meridian & Acupoint, College of Korean Medicine, Dong-Eui University, 62, Yangjeong-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan, 47227, Republic of Korea, Tel : +82-51-850-8752, E-mail : kjjang59@empal.com
Received 2015 August 03; Revised 2015 August 25; Accepted 2015 August 26.

Abstract

Objectives:

The aim of this study is to determine whether Chinemys reevesii Gray pharmacopuncture is a clinically effective treatment for women with knee osteoarthritis.

Methods:

Female patients with knee osteoarthritis were recruited from May 1st, 2014 to April 15th, 2015 at the Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion Medicine of Dong-Eui University Korean Medical Hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. 4.0 ml of Chinemys reevesii Gray pharmacopuncture was injected at acupuncture points of the experimental group(n = 24) twice a week for three weeks. The control group(n = 24) received 5 % dextrose injections in order to identically stimulate the same acupuncture points of ST35, ST34, SP9, SP10, GB34, LR8, EX-LE4, and EX-LE2. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire(SF-MPQ), the Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(KWOMAC), and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions(EQ-5D) were recorded to evaluate treatment efficacy at first visit, after two weeks and four weeks from the initial visit.

Results:

40 patients completed the trial. The experimental group showed more significant improvement than the control group in the scores of SF-MPQ, KWOMAC, and EQ-5D. However, there was no significant difference between groups in a few of the assessment scales.

Conclusions:

Chinemys reevesii Gray pharmacopuncture can be an effective treatment in control of pain, improvement in function and health-related quality of life for women with knee osteoarthritis.

General Characteristics

Average of SF-MPQ in Each Group

Improvement of SF-MPQ in Each Group According to Treatment Period

Comparison of the Improvement of SF-MPQ between Group A and B

Average of KWOMAC in Each Group

Improvement of KWOMAC in Each Group According to Treatment Period

Comparison of the Improvement of KWOMAC between Group A and B

Average of EQ-5D in Each Group

Improvement of EQ-5D in Each Group According to Treatment Period

Comparison of the Improvement of EQ-5D between Group A and B

References

1. Yamaguchi T, Kitahara M, Fukui T. Today’s Therapy Seoul: Daeyeong; 2007. p. 1023.
2. Kim HR, Kim EJ. Prevalence of osteoarthritis and its affecting factors among a Korean population aged 50 and over. J Korean Pubilc Health Nurs 2013;27(1):27–39.
3. Kim TY, Kim JH, Park JH, et al. The domestic trends of traditional Korean medicine treatments on degenerative knee arthritis. The Journal of Korea Chuna Manual Medicine for Spine & Nerves 2014;9(2):69–79.
4. Kim JH, Lee JD. Clinical research of bee-venom acupuncture analgesic effect on osteoarthritis. The Acupuncture 1999;16(3):25–38.
5. Wang WH, Ahn KB, Lim JK, Jang HS. Clinical investigation compared with the effects of the bee-venom acupuncture on knee joint with osteoarthritis. J Pharmacopuncture 2001;4(3):101–3.
6. Lee SN, Hong SY, Jo HC, Byeon IJ, Song HS, Kim GH. The clinical study on bee venom acupuncture treatment on osteoarthritis of knee joint. The Acupuncture 2003;20(5):73–81.
7. Ryu SM, Lee JS, Kim SS, Jung SH. The effect of intra-articular bee venom injection on osteoarthritis of the knee. J Oriental Rehab Med 2004;14(1):35–52.
8. Lim JA, Kim SC, Kim SN, et al. The clinical study on bee venom acupuncture treatment on osteoarthritis of knee joint. J Pharmacopuncture 2005;8(2):29–37.
9. An BJ, Kim KT, Kang MS, Song HS. Effect of bee venom-acupuncture on patients with osteoarthritis of knee joint. The Acupuncture 2006;23(4):15–20.
10. Na WM, Lee SY, Jang EH, et al. A study on pain relief effects and allergic responses for the osteoarthritis of the knee joint between sweet bee venom and bee venom pharmacopuncture. J Pharmacopuncure 2007;10(2):47–55.
11. Kim SC, Na WM, Lee SY, Jang EH, Lim SI. A study on pain relief effects and allergic responses for the osteoarthritis of the knee joint between sweet bee venom and bee venom pharmacopuncture. J Pharmacopuncture 2008;11(1):31–40.
12. Kim HB, Lee RM, Lee MH, et al. Comparative study of effects of ‘intramuscular bee venom herbal acupuncture’ and ‘intracutaneous bee venom herbal acupuncture’ in knee osteoarthritis patients. The Acupuncture 2008;25(2):151–64.
13. Lee SH, Kwon GS, Kang MS, Yoon HM, Kim CH. Comparative study on the effects of bee venom pharmacopuncture according to the treatment method for knee osteoarthritis. J Pharmacopuncture 2012;15(4):7–14.
14. Hwang KS, Jeong HS, Baek JY, et al. Study on clinical effects of oak-mushroom herbal-acupuncture on osteoarthritis in knee joint. The Acupuncture 2001;18(6):141–50.
15. Hur TY, Yun MY, Cho EH, Lee OJ, Kim KS, Cho NG. Clinical study on effect of carthamiflos herbal acupuncture therapy on osteoarthritis in knee joint. The Acupuncture 2002;19(2):189–200.
16. Park EJ, Shin JC, Na GH, et al. Study on clinical effects of cervus elaphus herbal-acupuncture on osteoarthritis in knee joint. The Acupuncture 2004;21(2):275–86.
17. Park KB, Song KH, Lee JS, Jo JH. Study on clinical effects of homnis placenta herbal acupuncture on osteoarthritis of knee joint. The Acupuncture 2006;23(4):163–73.
18. Kim EJ, Jang MK, Yoon EH, et al. Efficacy of pharmacopuncture using root bark of ulmus davidiana planch in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Acupunct Meridian Stud 2010;3(1):16–23.
19. Academic Committee of Korean Pharmacopuncture Institute, ; Pharmacopuncture Medicine Laboratory. Pharmacopuncturology 2nd edth ed. Seoul: Elsevier Korea; 2011. p. 3p. 191–3. p. 195.
20. Oriental Obstetrics and Gynecology Compilation Committee. Oriental obstetrics & gynecology I Seoul: Jeongdam; 2007. p. 79–80.
21. Joint Textbook Compilation Committee of National Oriental Medicine College. Botany Seoul: Yeongnimsa; 2011. p. 661.
22. Altman R, Asch D, Bloch D, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and therapeutic criteria committee of the American rheumatism association. Arthritis Rheum 1986;29(8):1039–49.
23. Kim EJ. Reliability and validity of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire(SF-MPQ) Korean version for measuring the old adult’s pain. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research 2004;10(1):20–7.
24. Bae SC, Lee HS, Yun HR, Kim TH, Yoo DH, Kim SY. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) and lequesne osteoarthritis indices for clinical research. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2001;9(8):746–50.
25. Lim NY, Lee IO, Lee EN, et al. A validation study of EQ-5D in the patients with osteoarthritis. J Muscle Joint Health 2010;17(2):203–11.
26. Korean Orthopedic Association. Orthopedics Seoul: Newest Medicine Company; 1999. p. 195. p. 517.
27. Oh JH, Yi MS. Structural equation modeling on quality of life in older adults with osteoarthritis. J Korean Acad Nurs 2014;44(1):75–85.
28. Felson DT, Zhang Y. An update on the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis with a view to prevention. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41(8):1343–55.
29. Hame SL, Alexander RA. Knee osteoarthritis in women. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2013;6(2):182–7.
30. Kim DH, Lee JH. The emperor’s inner canon basic questions the first volume Seoul: Uiseongdang; 2001. p. 14. p. 224. p. 338. p. 552. p. 554.
31. Xueming Xie, Yuansheng Zhong, Chunhua Huang, et al. Study of antioxidant activities of plastrum testudinis in vitro. China Pharmacy 2006;17(18):1368–70.
32. Chen DF, Zeng HP, Du SH, et al. Extracts from plastrum testudinis promote proliferation of rat bonemarrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Proliferation 2007;40(2):196–212.
33. Hui Li, Chun Li, Feng Chen Dong, et al. Promoting effects of seropharmacological plastrum testudinis on the expression of bone morphogenetic protein 4 of rat mesenchymal stem cell in vitro. Acta Anatomica Sinica 2007;38(3):304–9.
34. Rudong Deng, Yiwei Li, Dongfeng Chen, et al. Protective effect of plastrum testudinis on the apoptosis of dopamine neurons of rats with Parkinson’s disease. Chinese Journal of Neuroanatomy 2008;24(3):301–6.
35. Ha MK, Ku YH, Choi IH. Therapeutic effects of extract of uncariae ramulis and testudinis plastrum on cochlear morphologic change induced by salicylate ototoxicity. J Korean Oriental Med 2004;25(3):160–8.
36. Baek YM, Choi JY, Lee CW, et al. Effects of chinemys reevesii on lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammatory reactions. Korean J Oriental Physiology & Pathology 2012;26(1):26–34.
37. Kim DY. Effect of testudinis carapax on expression of cyclooxygenase-2 in L929 fibroblast cell line [dissertation] Seoul: Kyunghee University; 2003. Korean.
38. Seo JC, Xue Charlie. Randomized clinical trials of herbal acupuncture for placebo control. The Acupuncture 2008;25(6):153–61.
39. KimDH. The emperor’s inner canon spiritual pivot Seoul: Uiseongdang; 2002. p. 306. p. 314. p. 347.
40. Kim EJ, Lee SD, Jung CY, et al. Review of randomized controlled trials on ideal acupuncture treatment for degenerative knee osteoarthritis. The Acupuncture 2009;26(2):125–45.

Article information Continued

Table 1

General Characteristics

A Group (n=20) B Group (n=20) p-value
Age 62.50±5.81 61.75±6.60 0.820*
Affected part (Both/Left/Right) 20(11/5/4) 20(11/5/4) 1.000***
SF-MPQ Sensory 12.20±6.08 11.20±6.85 0.445*
Affective 2.25±2.43 2.30±3.25 0.445*
VAS 5.35±1.42 5.30±1.13 0.862*
PPI 2.30±0.87 2.20±0.89 0.904*
KWOMAC 31.10±12.77 32.05±18.79 0.698*
EQ-5D 8.75±1.29 8.75±1.21 1.000**

Values represent number or mean±standard deviation.

*

using Mann-Whitney U test, p > 0.05.

**

using Student’s t-test, p > 0.05.

***

using Chi-square test, p > 0.05.

Table 2

Average of SF-MPQ in Each Group

Group A Group B
Sensory P0 12.20±6.08 11.20±6.85
P1 7.10±3.97 8.20±6.31
P2 5.00±4.10 7.80±6.80
Affective P0 2.25±2.43 2.30±3.25
P1 1.05±1.23 1.85±2.56
P2 0.95±1.19 1.85±2.43
VAS P0 5.35±1.42 5.30±1.13
P1 3.70±1.42 4.45±1.50
P2 2.55±1.54 4.35±1.57
PPI P0 2.30±0.87 2.20±0.89
P1 1.75±0.64 1.90±0.85
P2 1.20±0.41 1.65±0.67

P0 : score before treatment.

P1 : score after two weeks from first visit.

P2 : score after four weeks from first visit(score after one week from final treatment).

Values represent mean±standard deviation.

Table 3

Improvement of SF-MPQ in Each Group According to Treatment Period

Group A Group B
Z or t p-value Z or t p-value
Sensory P01 −3.417 0.001* −3.190 0.001*
P12 4.273 0.000** −1.235 0.217
P02 −3.830 0.000* −3.476 0.001*
Affective P01 −2.111 0.035* −0.851 0.395
P12 −0.491 0.623 0.000 1.000
P02 −2.214 0.027* −0.543 0.587
VAS P01 6.773 0.000** −2.549 0.011*
P12 −3.493 0.000* −0.541 0.589
P02 −3.950 0.000* −2.708 0.007*
PPI P01 −2.887 0.004* −1.350 0.177
P12 −3.051 0.002* −1.890 0.059
P02 −3.700 0.000* −2.810 0.005*

P01 : period from the first visit to the second week.

P12 : period form the second week to the fourth week.

P02 : period from the first visit to the fourth week.

*

p-value < 0.05 by Wilcoxon signed rank test.

**

p-value < 0.05 by paired t-test.

Table 4

Comparison of the Improvement of SF-MPQ between Group A and B

Group A Group B Z or t p-value
Sensory P01 5.10±5.95 3.00±3.60 −0.968 0.341
P12 2.10±2.20 0.40±2.19 −2.004 0.049*
P02 7.20±5.55 3.40±4.12 −2.868 0.004*
Affective P01 1.20±2.40 0.45±2.11 −1.379 0.211
P12 0.10±0.97 0.00±0.56 −0.485 0.698
P02 1.30±2.68 0.45±1.99 −1.612 0.127
VAS P01 1.65±1.09 0.85±1.31 −2.468 0.017*
P12 1.15±0.88 0.10±0.79 −3.544 0.001*
P02 2.80±1.44 0.95±1.40 −3.788 0.000*
PPI P01 0.55±0.76 0.30±0.92 −0.802 0.478
P12 0.55±0.61 0.25±0.55 −1.845 0.127
P02 1.10±0.91 0.55±0.69 −2.156 0.049*

P01 : period from the first visit to the second week.

P12 : period from the second week to the fourth week.

P02 : period from the first visit to the fourth week.

*

p-value < 0.05 by Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 5

Average of KWOMAC in Each Group

Group A Group B
P0 31.10±12.77 32.05±18.79
P1 23.15±10.74 28.90±17.10
P2 17.05±8.84 28.00±18.44

P0 : score before treatment.

P1 : score after two weeks from first visit.

P2 : score after four weeks from first visit(score after one week from final treatment).

Values represent mean±standard deviation.

Table 6

Improvement of KWOMAC in Each Group According to Treatment Period

Group A Group B

Z or t p-value Z or t p-value
P01 3.287 0.004** 2.084 0.051
P12 −3.928 0.000* 0.688 0.500
P02 −3.922 0.000* 1.915 0.071

P01 : period from the first visit to the second week.

P12 : period form the second week to the fourth week.

P02 : period from the first visit to the fourth week.

*

p-value < 0.05 by Wilcoxon signed rank test.

**

p-value < 0.05 by paired t-test.

Table 7

Comparison of the Improvement of KWOMAC between Group A and B

Group A Group B Z or t p-value
P01 7.95±10.82 3.15±6.76 1.683 0.101
P12 6.10±5.42 0.90±5.85 −3.337 0.001*
P02 14.05±9.83 4.05±9.46 −3.507 0.000*

P01 : period from the first visit to the second week.

P12 : period from the second week to the fourth week.

P02 : period from the first visit to the fourth week.

*

p-value < 0.05 by Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 8

Average of EQ-5D in Each Group

Group A Group B
P0 8.75±1.29 8.75±1.21
P1 8.50±1.15 8.60±1.70
P2 7.75±1.29 8.65±1.35

P0 : score before treatment.

P1 : score after two weeks from first visit.

P2 : score after four weeks from first visit(score after one week from final treatment).

Values represent mean±standard deviation.

Table 9

Improvement of EQ-5D in Each Group According to Treatment Period

Group A Group B

Z or t p-value Z or t p-value
P01 −0.643 0.520 −0.755 0.450
P12 −3.066 0.002* −0.432 0.666
P02 −2.958 0.003* 0.400 0.694

P01 : period from the first visit to the second week.

P12 : period form the second week to the fourth week.

P02 : period from the first visit to the fourth week.

*

p-value < 0.05 by Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Table 10

Comparison of the Improvement of EQ-5D between Group A and B

Group A Group B Z or t p-value
P01 0.25±1.37 0.15±1.27 −0.459 0.659
P12 0.75±0.85 −0.05±1.05 −2.798 0.008*
P02 1.00±1.12 0.10±1.12 −2.412 0.020*

P01 : period from the first visit to the second week.

P12 : period from the second week. to the fourth week.

P02 : period from the first visit to the fourth week.

*

p-value < 0.05 by Mann-Whitney U test.