toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/acutrialsocom/public_html/refbase-ocom/includes/ on line 5275
  Record Links
Author (up) McKeon, C.; Smith, C.A.; Gibbons, K.; Hardy, J. url  doi
  Title EA versus sham acupuncture and no acupuncture for the control of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pilot study Type of Study RCT
  Year 2015 Publication Acupuncture in Medicine : Journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society Abbreviated Journal Acupunct Med  
  Volume 33 Issue 4 Pages 277-283  
  Keywords RCT; Neoplasms; Chemotherapy Side Effects; Cancer; Antineoplastic Agents; Nausea; Vomiting; Pilot Study; Acu + Usual Care Versus > 1 Control; Electroacupuncture; TCM Acupuncture Style; Fixed Acupuncture Protocol; Restricted Modalities, Acupuncture Only; Sham Control; Penetrating Sham; Superficial Needling Depth; Near Verum Acupoint Control; Usual Care Control, Pharmaceutical  
  Abstract OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of undertaking a high-quality randomised controlled study to determine whether EA gives better control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) than sham EA or standard antiemetic treatment alone. METHODS: Patients having their first cycle of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomised to EA, sham EA or standard care. EA was given for 30 min on day 1 at the time of chemotherapy and on day 3 using standard acupuncture points bilaterally. Sham EA was given to points adjacent to true EA points. All patients received usual care, comprising antiemetics, according to hospital guidelines. The primary outcomes related to study feasibility, and the clinical outcome measure was the change in Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) score captured on days 1 and 7. RESULTS: 153 participants were screened between April 2009 and May 2011. Eighteen patients did not meet the inclusion criteria, 37 declined to participate and the absence of an acupuncturist or lack of consent from the treating oncologist excluded a further 38 patients; 60 patients were recruited. The FLIE was completed on day 7 by 49 participants; 33 of 40 patients returned on day 3 for treatment. The nausea and vomiting scores were low in all three arms. Adverse events were generally mild and infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to undertake a randomised EA trial on a busy day oncology unit. As few patients experienced nausea with their first cycle of chemotherapy, it was not possible to determine whether EA improves CINV over standard care. An enriched enrolment strategy is indicated for future studies. A simple numerical rating scale may prove a better objective nausea measure than the FLIE. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12609001054202.  
  Address Palliative and Supportive Care, Mater Health Services, South Brisbane, Australia  
  Language English Number of Treatments 2  
  Treatment Follow-up 1 Week Frequency >1/WK Number of Participants 60  
  Time in Treatment 3 Days Condition Chemotherapy Side Effects
  Disease Category Neoplasms OCSI Score  
  Notes PMID:26018947 Approved yes  
  Call Number OCOM @ refbase @ Serial 1887  
Permanent link to this record
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 

Save Citations:
Export Records: