School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2013 Jun;17(26):1-114. doi: 10.3310/hta17260.
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain difficult symptoms to manage in clinical practice. As standard antiemetic drugs do not fully eliminate these symptoms, it is important to explore the adjuvant role of non-pharmacological and complementary therapies in antiemetic management approaches. Acupressure is one such treatment showing highly suggestive evidence so far of a positive effect, meriting further investigation.
The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-acupressure using wristbands compared with sham acupressure wristbands and standard care alone in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea. Secondary objectives included assessment of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the wristbands in relation to vomiting and quality of life and exploration of any age, gender and emetogenic risk effects.
Randomised three-arm sham-controlled trial (Assessment of Nausea in Chemotherapy Research or ANCHoR) with an economic evaluation. Arms include the wristband arm, the sham wristband arm and the standard care only arm. Randomisation consisted of minimisation with a random element balancing for gender, age (16-24, > 24-50, >50 years) and three levels of emetogenic chemotherapy (low, moderate and high). Qualitative interviews were incorporated to shed more light on the quantitative findings.
Outpatient chemotherapy clinics in three regions in the UK involving 14 different cancer units/centres.
Chemotherapy-naive cancer patients receiving chemotherapy of low, moderate and high emetogenic risk.
The intervention was acupressure wristbands pressing the P6 point (anterior surface of the forearm).
The Rhodes Index for Nausea/Vomiting, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). At baseline participants completed measures of anxiety/depression, nausea/vomiting expectation and expectations from using the wristbands.
In total, 500 patients were randomised in the study arms (166 standard care, 166 sham acupressure and 168 acupressure) and data were available for 361 participants for the primary outcome. The primary outcome analysis (nausea in cycle 1) revealed no statistically significant differences between the three arms, although the median nausea experience in patients using wristbands (both real and sham ones) was somewhat lower than that in the antiemetics only group (median nausea experience scores for the four cycles: standard care arm 1.43, 1.71, 1.14, 1.14; sham acupressure arm 0.57, 0.71, 0.71, 0.43; acupressure arm 1.00, 0.93, 0.43, 0). A gender effect was evident (p= 0.002), with women responding more favourably to the use of sham acupressure wristbands than men (odds ratio 0.35 for men and 2.02 for women in the sham acupressure group; 1.27 for men and 1.17 for women in the acupressure group). This suggests a placebo effect. No significant differences were detected in relation to vomiting outcomes, anxiety and quality of life. Some transient adverse effects were reported, including tightness in the area of the wristbands, feeling uncomfortable when wearing them and minor swelling in the wristband area (n= 6).There were no statistically significant cost differences associated with the use of real acupressure bands (£70.66 for the acupressure group, £111.13 for the standard care group and £161.92 for the sham acupressure group). In total, 26 subjects took part in qualitative interviews. The qualitative data suggested that participants perceived the wristbands (both real and sham) as effective and helpful in managing their nausea during chemotherapy.
There were no statistically significant differences between the three arms in terms of nausea, vomiting and quality of life, although apparent resource use was less in both the real acupressure arm and the sham acupressure arm compared with standard care only; therefore; no clear conclusions can be drawn about the use of acupressure wristbands in the management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. However, the study provided encouraging evidence in relation to an improved nausea experience and some indications of possible cost savings to warrant further consideration of acupressure both in practice and in further clinical trials.
ISRCTN87604299.
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 26. See the HTA programme website for further project information.
化疗引起的恶心和呕吐仍然是临床实践中难以处理的症状。由于标准止吐药物不能完全消除这些症状,因此探索非药物和补充疗法在止吐管理方法中的辅助作用非常重要。按压腕带就是一种治疗方法,迄今为止,它具有非常有说服力的证据表明其具有积极的效果,值得进一步研究。
主要目的是评估与假按压腕带和标准护理相比,自我按压腕带在治疗化疗引起的恶心方面的有效性和成本效益。次要目的包括评估腕带在呕吐和生活质量方面的有效性和成本效益,以及探索任何年龄、性别和致吐风险的影响。
这是一项随机三臂假对照试验(化疗恶心研究评估或 ANCHoR),同时进行经济评估。试验包括腕带组、假腕带组和仅标准护理组。随机化采用最小化方法,随机元素平衡性别、年龄(16-24 岁、24-50 岁、50 岁以上)和三种致吐风险的化疗(低、中、高)。纳入了定性访谈,以更深入地了解定量结果。
英国三个地区的门诊化疗诊所,涉及 14 个不同的癌症单位/中心。
接受低、中、高致吐风险化疗的化疗初治癌症患者。
干预措施是按压腕带的 P6 点(前臂前表面)。
恶心/呕吐的 Rhodes 指数、多国支持性癌症护理协会(MASCC)止吐工具和癌症治疗一般功能评估(FACT-G)。在基线时,参与者完成了焦虑/抑郁、恶心/呕吐预期和对使用腕带的期望的测量。
共有 500 名患者被随机分配到研究组(166 名标准护理、166 名假按压腕带和 168 名按压腕带),361 名参与者可用于主要结局分析。主要结局分析(第 1 周期的恶心)显示,三组之间没有统计学上的显著差异,尽管使用腕带的患者的恶心体验中位数(真实和假腕带)略低于抗恶心药物组(四个周期的中位数恶心体验评分:标准护理组 1.43、1.71、1.14、1.14;假按压腕带组 0.57、0.71、0.71、0.43;按压腕带组 1.00、0.93、0.43、0)。性别效应明显(p=0.002),女性对假按压腕带的反应比男性更有利(假按压腕带组中男性的比值比为 0.35,女性为 2.02;按压腕带组中男性的比值比为 1.27,女性为 1.17)。这表明存在安慰剂效应。在呕吐结局、焦虑和生活质量方面没有发现显著差异。报告了一些短暂的不良事件,包括腕带区域的紧绷感、佩戴时的不适感和腕带区域的轻微肿胀(n=6)。与使用真按压腕带相关的成本没有统计学上的显著差异(按压腕带组为 70.66 英镑,标准护理组为 111.13 英镑,假按压腕带组为 161.92 英镑)。共有 26 名参与者参加了定性访谈。定性数据表明,参与者认为腕带(真实和假)在化疗期间有效且有助于控制他们的恶心。
在恶心、呕吐和生活质量方面,三组之间没有统计学上的显著差异,尽管与仅标准护理相比,真按压腕带组和假按压腕带组的实际资源使用较少;因此,不能得出关于使用按压腕带治疗化疗相关恶心和呕吐的明确结论。然而,该研究提供了令人鼓舞的证据,表明在恶心体验方面有所改善,并且在某些方面可能有成本节约的迹象,因此值得进一步考虑在实践和进一步的临床试验中使用按压腕带。
ISRCTN87604299。
本项目由英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所卫生技术评估计划资助,将在卫生技术评估杂志全文发表;第 17 卷,第 26 期。欲了解更多项目信息,请访问 HTA 计划网站。