ABSTRACT Objective Acupuncture is recognized as an effective migraine treatment, but the comparative long‐term efficacy of different acupuncture methods at identical acupoints remains unclear. This study investigates the prophylactic effects of manual acupuncture (manual penetrating acupuncture, MPA) versus sham acupuncture (non‐penetrating acupuncture, NPA) at the same acupoints. Methods In this multicenter, single‐blind randomized controlled trial conducted across four Chinese clinical centers (May 2020 to September 2022), 192 migraineurs without aura (International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition criteria) were randomized 1:1 to 12 sessions of MPA or NPA. Primary outcome was the change from baseline in migraine attack frequency at week 16; secondary outcomes included migraine attack frequency, responder rates, migraine days, and pain intensity (every 4 weeks), etc. Trial registration: No . ChiCTR2000032308. Results A total of 198 participants were randomly allocated to either MPA or NPA groups, 99 in each group. At 16 weeks, the change in MPA showed a greater reduction in migraine attacks versus NPA (mean difference MD = –0.6, 95% confidence interval CI –1.5 to 0.05; p = 0.069). MPA demonstrated superior responder rates (risk difference = 17.2%, 95% CI 5.2 to 29.1; p = 0.007) and pain reduction (MD = –0.6, 95% CI –1.1 to –0.2; p = 0.003) after treatment. At follow‐up, MPA improved all migraine symptoms and some quality of life compared with NPA. Adverse events occurred in 5.1% of MPA participants. Conclusions Although MPA and NPA showed comparable preventive effects, MPA provided sustained symptom relief and quality‐of‐life improvements. Therefore, suitable acupoint selection establishes therapeutic potential, whereas acupuncture methods critically determine long‐term clinical benefits.
Sun et al. (Thu,) studied this question.