Acupuncture for the Treatment of Cocaine Addiction

200 S. Kelly et al.TABLE 1Means (SDS) for Cocaine Use Variables for Treatment Completers (n = 30) at Baseline and Over the Courseof the B-Week Study by Type of Needle Puncture Treatment ReceivedStudy Week0 1 2 3 4 5 6Urine ToxicologyPercent Cocaine PositiveActive acupunctureControl needle punctureSelf-ReportGrams Used per WeekActive acupunctureControl needle punctureNumber of Days Used Per WeekActive acupunctureControl needle punctureCraving rating: (Scale: 0- 10)Active acupunctureControl needle puncture93.7 71.9 65.6(25.0) (40.7) (47.3)92.9 82.1 71.4(26.7) (31.7) (37.8)1.3(2.9)1.7(3.5)1.4 0.3(3.0) (0.4)1.1 0.9(1.4) (0.9)2.2 1.8 1.2(1 .a) (1 .a) (1.2)2.1 1.8 2.0(1.9) (1.8) (1.4)3.3 1.6 1.1(3.5) (2 3) (1.3)3.3 2.3 2.1(3.4) (2.4) (2.1)62.5 65.6 56.2 53.1(46.5) (43.7) (44.2) (46.4)67.9 71.4 67.9 57.1(46.4) (42.6) (42.1) (43.2)0.2(0.3)0.9(1.4)0.9(1 .O)1.5(1.5)0.7(1.4)2.0(2.1)0.2 0.6 0.2(0.3) (1.a (0.5)0.7 0.5 0.2(1 .O) (0.7) (0.3)0.6 1.0 0.6(0.6) (1 .O) (1 .O)1.4 1.1 0.6(1.7) (1 .O) (0.7)0.6 0.6 0.4(1 .O) (0.9) (0.9)2.0 1.8 2.7(2.4) (2.5) (2.7)Note. Mtssed urine = positive for cocalne metabolite; missed self-report = weekly mean for subject’s treatment groupBeck Depression Inventory. There was a main effectfor Time (F[ 1, 281 = 9.95, p < .004). Depression decreasedsignificantly across the 6-week study [PretreatmentM = 19.6 (+- 12.4); Posttreatment M = 14.1(+ 10.6)]. There was no main effect for type of acupuncture,and there was no significant interaction.ASI Composite Scores. There were main effects forTime for the following composite scores: Intensity ofDrug Problems (F[ 1, 281 = 7.40, p < .Ol ; pretreatmentM= .35 (k.13); posttreatment M= .29 (&.ll)), andIntensity of Legal Problems (F[ 1,281 = 6.20, p < .02;pretreatment M = .07 [*. 121; posttreatment M = .03[*.07]). There were no main effects for type of acupunctureand no significant interactions.SCL-90 Scores. There were main effects for Time forthe following subscale scores: Somatization (F[l, 281 =8.05, p < .008; pre M = 1.27 [+ .91]; post M = 0.92[+-.69]); Depression (F[l, 281 = 7.57, p < .Ol; preM=1.35[+.99];postM=1.01 [+.93]);Anxiety(F[1,28] =9.28, p < .005; pre M = 1.12 i-t.901; post A4 = 0.74f&77]); Phobic Anxiety (F[ 1,281 = 5.50, p < .03; preM = 0.76 [k .75]; post M = 0.53 [+ .68]); and Psychoticism(F[l, 281 = 6.03, p < .02; pre M= 0.81 [*.74];post M= 0.61 + .66]). There were no main effects fortype of acupuncture, and no significant interactions.Attitudes Toward and SubjectiveResponses to AcupunctureTreatment Credibility Scale. Means and standard deviationsfor scores on the TCS are shown in Table 2.A series of 2 (type of acupuncture) x 2 (pre/post 6-weektreatment period) mixed ANOVAs were conducted onthe five TCS items. Collapsed across type of acupuncture,confidence that acupuncture would help with druguse, and confidence in recommending acupuncture toa friend increased from pretreatment to post-dweektreatment (F[l, 281 = 5.03, p < .03, and F[l, 281 =14.55, p < .OOl, respectively). There was no significantchange in how logical the treatment seemed either fordrug use or for other health problems, or in subjects’confidence that the treatment would be useful for thetreatment of other health problems. There were nomain effects for type of acupuncture on any of the fiveitems and no significant interactions. Pearson correlationsrevealed no significant relation between confidencein acupuncture and percent of urines positive forcocaine submitted during the course of the study, eitherby type of needle puncture received, or collapsedacross needle puncture conditions.Acute Effects of Acupuncture (AEA) Scales. A seriesof 2 (type of acupuncture) x 2 (pre/post acupuncture