OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a combination of acupuncture and acupressure is effective for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomised cross-over trial, 28 patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and conventional standard antiemesis were treated for one chemotherapy cycle with a combination ofacupuncture and acupressure at point P6 and for one cycle at a close sham point. The main outcome measure was a nausea score derived from daily intensity rating. RESULTS: There was no difference between combined acupuncture and acupressure treatment at P6 and at the sham point for the nausea score, but the level of nausea was very low in both phases. The mean nausea score was 6.2 (standard deviation 9.0) for treatment at P6 and 6.3 (9.1) for treatment at the sham point (mean difference -0.1, 95% confidence interval -3.9 to 3.7; p=0.96). Seventeen of 21 participants completing the study would desireacupuncture and acupressure for future chemotherapy cycles, but there was no clear preference for either point. CONCLUSION: In this small pilot study a significant difference between treatment at P6 and a close sham point could not be detected. However, it cannot be ruled out that an existing difference was missed due to the small sample size.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a combination of acupuncture and acupressure is effective for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomised cross-over trial, 28 patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and conventional standard antiemesis were treated for one chemotherapy cycle with a combination of acupuncture and acupressure at point P6 and for one cycle at a close sham point. The main outcome measure was a nausea score derived from daily intensity rating. RESULTS: There was no difference between combined acupuncture and acupressure treatment at P6 and at the sham point for the nausea score, but the level of nausea was very low in both phases. The mean nausea score was 6.2 (standard deviation 9.0) for treatment at P6 and 6.3 (9.1) for treatment at the sham point (mean difference -0.1, 95% confidence interval -3.9 to 3.7; p=0.96). Seventeen of 21 participants completing the study would desire acupuncture and acupressure for future chemotherapy cycles, but there was no clear preference for either point. CONCLUSION: In this small pilot study a significant difference between treatment at P6 and a close sham point could not be detected. However, it cannot be ruled out that an existing difference was missed due to the small sample size.
Authors: R J Gralla; D Osoba; M G Kris; P Kirkbride; P J Hesketh; L W Chinnery; R Clark-Snow; D P Gill; S Groshen; S Grunberg; J M Koeller; G R Morrow; E A Perez; J H Silber; D G Pfister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P J Hesketh; M G Kris; S M Grunberg; T Beck; J D Hainsworth; G Harker; M S Aapro; D Gandara; C M Lindley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Steven M Grunberg; Robert R Deuson; Panagiotis Mavros; Olga Geling; Mogens Hansen; Giorgio Cruciani; Bruno Daniele; Gerard De Pouvourville; Edward B Rubenstein; Gedske Daugaard Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Ihbe-Heffinger; B Ehlken; R Bernard; K Berger; C Peschel; H-G Eichler; R Deuson; J Thödtmann; F Lordick Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Joseph A Roscoe; Gary R Morrow; Jane T Hickok; Peter Bushunow; H Irving Pierce; Patrick J Flynn; Jeffrey J Kirshner; Dennis F Moore; James N Atkins Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: M Kay Garcia; Jennifer McQuade; Robin Haddad; Sonya Patel; Richard Lee; Peiying Yang; J Lynn Palmer; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Weidong Lu; Ursula A Matulonis; Anne Doherty-Gilman; Hang Lee; Elizabeth Dean-Clower; Andrew Rosulek; Carolyn Gibson; Annekathryn Goodman; Roger B Davis; Julie E Buring; Peter M Wayne; David S Rosenthal; Richard T Penson Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Anna Enblom; Gunnar Steineck; Mats Hammar; Sussanne Börjeson Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 2.629