1. Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized commercial reproduction of this slide is prohibited Supplemental PowerPoint Slides Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter, Randomized, Patient-Assessor Blind, Sham-Controlled Clinical Trial Yu-Jeong Cho1, Yun-Kyung Song2, Yun-Yeop Cha3, Byung-Cheul Shin4, Im-Hee Shin5, Hi-Joon Park6, Hyang-Sook Lee6, Koh-Woon Kim1, Jae-Heung Cho1, Won-Suk Chung1, Jun-Hwan Lee1, Mi-Yeon Song1* 1Department of Oriental Rehabilitation Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea 2Department of Oriental Rehabilitation Medicine, Kyung Won University, Sungnam, Korea 3Department of Oriental Rehabilitation Medicine, Sang Ji University, Wonju, Korea 4Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Korean Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea 5Department of Biomedical Statistics, Catholic University of Daegu, Daegu, Korea 6Department of Meridian and Acupoints, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea

2. Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized commercial reproduction of this slide is prohibited Supplemental PowerPoint Slides Study Design. Multicenter, Randomized, Patient-Assessor Blind, Sham-Controlled Clinical Trial. Objective. To investigate the efficacy of acupuncture treatment with individualized setting for reduction of bothersomeness in participants with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Summary of Background Data. Low back pain is one of the main reasons of disability among adults of working age. Acupuncture is known as an effective treatment for chronic low back pain, but it remains still unclear whether acupuncture is superior to placebo. Methods. One hundred thirty adults aged 18-65 with non-specific LBP of lasting for at least the last 3 months was participated in the three Korean medical hospitals in Korea. Participants got individualized real acupuncture treatments or sham acupuncture treatments over 6 weeks (twice a week) from Korean medicine doctors. Primary outcome was change of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for bothersomeness of cLBP. Secondary outcomes included VAS for pain intensity and questionnaires including Oswestry disability index (ODI), General health status (SF-36), and Beck’s depression inventory (BDI). Results. There were no baseline differences observed between two groups except ODI. One hundred sixteen participants finished the treatments and 3-, 6-month follow ups with fourteen subjects’ drop-out. Significant difference of VAS for bothersomeness and pain intensity of cLBP have been found between two groups (p<0.05) at the primary end point (8 week). In addition, those two scores have been improved continuously until 3- month follow up (p=0.011, p=0.005, respectively). ODI, BDI and SF-36 scores were also improved in both groups without group difference. Conclusion. This randomized sham-controlled trial suggests that acupuncture treatment show the better effects on the reduction of the bothersomeness and pain intensity than sham-control in participants with cLBP.

3. Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized commercial reproduction of this slide is prohibited Supplemental PowerPoint Slides Key Points There is evidence that individualized acupuncture treatment reduces bothersomeness of chronic low back pain better than sham acupuncture. There is evidence that individualized acupuncture treatment reduces pain intensity of chronic low back pain better than sham acupuncture. No significant effect was observed on disability, depression, or general health by individualized acupuncture treatment compared to sham acupuncture. There was no significant adverse event by acupuncture treatment.

4. Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized commercial reproduction of this slide is prohibited Supplemental PowerPoint Slides VAS for Acupuncturebaseline End of treatments Primary endpoint 3-month follow up 6-month follow up pbpb bothersomeness Real6.44±1.503.05±2.493.08±2.442.83±2.342.85±2.440.011† Sham6.32±1.144.26±1.804.05±1.843.99±2.063.63±2.37 papa 0.024† pain intensity Real6.52±1.412.96±2.393.00±2.412.78±2.322.79±2.440.005‡ Sham6.37±1.184.28±1.834.10±1.854.06±2.193.52±2.53 papa 0.008‡ asignificance by two sample t-test at the primary end point(week 8) bsignificance by repeated measure two factor analysis between-groups, among periods † p<0.05 ‡p<0.01