RESUMO
Background: Electroacupuncture (EA) is commonly employed for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), whereas laser acupuncture (LA) seems to offer a safer and more convenient alternative. Nevertheless, transitioning from EA to LA requires evidence. This study aims to compare their clinical efficacy and safety. Methods: A randomized single-blind controlled trial was conducted on 76 CTS patients, with 38 patients assigned to receive EA (EA group) and 38 assigned to receive LA (LA group). Acupoints selected for both groups included PC4, PC6, PC7, PC8, LI4, LI10, LI11, HT3, HT7, and LU10. The intervention consisted of 20 sessions over 4 weeks. Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Functional Status Scale (FSS) scores, patients' satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results: The LA group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in SSS and FSS scores than the EA group, with mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of -4.29 (-5.40 to -3.18) and -0.73 (-1.24 to -0.24), respectively, after 4 weeks of treatment. Complete symptom, functional recovery, and both were also significantly better in the LA group (relative risks [RR] [95% CI]: 14.00 [1.94 to 101.22], 1.58 [1.24 to 2.02], and 14.00 [1.94 to 101.22], respectively). Overall treatment effectiveness and satisfaction levels were notably higher in the LA group. Six patients experienced AEs in the EA group, whereas no AEs were reported in the LA group. Conclusions: In this study, the findings indicate that LA may offer a safer and more effective alternative to EA. Further studies with longer follow-up periods and assessment of electrodiagnostic changes after intervention are needed.
RESUMO
Background In the face of the escalating COVID-19 pandemic amid shortages of medications and vaccines, a Vietnamese herbal formula known as Shen Cao Gan Jiang Tang (SCGJT) has been put into use for non-severe COVID-19 patients. This study aims to assess its efficacy and safety. Methods A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted on 300 patients with non-severe COVID-19, randomly assigned into two groups: 150 receiving standard care (control group) and 150 receiving additional SCGJT for 10 days (SCGJT group). Time to resolution of symptoms, symptom severity, disease progression, time to discharge, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) score, usage of Western drugs, time to viral clearance, and safety outcomes were continuously monitored. Results The SCGJT group exhibited faster symptom resolution (median: 9 vs. 13 days) and improved symptom severity, including cough, fatigue, hypogeusia, muscle aches, nasal congestion, runny nose, and sore throat, compared to the control group. Although there was a lower rate of severe progression in the SCGJT group (0.7% vs. 4.7%), the difference was not statistically significant. The time to discharge was significantly shorter in the SCGJT group (median: 7 vs. 8 days). Changes in the NEWS2 score did not show significant differences between groups. SCGJT has been demonstrated to reduce the need for symptomatic relief medications and hasten SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance. No adverse events were reported, and routine tests showed no significant differences. Conclusions SCGJT is safe and has potential clinical efficacy in non-severe COVID-19 patients. However, data regarding preventing severe progression remains inconclusive. Further studies should be conducted in light of the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic.