Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Fire Needling and Warm Needling on Acute Gout.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of heat stimuli (e.g., fire needling, warm needling) in acupuncture for acute gout. Methods: Four international online databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that used fire needling and warm needling for acute gout. The methodological quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool. Thirteen RCTs (840 patients) were included and analyzed. Three evaluation tools (total effective rate, uric acid level, and pain score) were mainly used. Comparisons were made between Western medicine (WM) and i) fire needling or warm needling treatment alone, ii) fire needling and bloodletting combination treatment, iii) combination of fire needling, bloodletting, and herbal medicine, iv) warm needling (concurrently). Heat stimuli in acupuncture alone or in combination treatment were more effective in terms of the total efficacy rates, uric acid levels, and pain scores than WM alone. Results: In all the evaluation tools, the treatment effects in the fire needling alone or warm needling alone treatment group and the fire needling and bloodletting combination intervention group were significantly better than those in the WM control group. The warm needling and WM combination intervention groups also experienced significantly better treatment effects in terms of total efficacy rates and uric acid levels. Only the pain scores in the fire needling, bloodletting, and herbal medicine combination groups demonstrated significant improvement. Only four studies mentioned adverse reactions one reported loss of appetite; three studies reported none. According to the Cochrane RoB tool, most studies showed either high or uncertain RoB. Conclusion: Heat stimuli during acupuncture could be effective for acute gout. However, as the included studies were regionally biased, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm the level of evidence.