PURPOSE: Persistent insomnia is a common complaint in cancer survivors, but is seldom satisfactorily addressed. The adaptation to cancer care of a validated, cost-effective intervention may offer a practicable solution. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of protocol-driven cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for insomnia, delivered by oncology nurses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomized, controlled, pragmatic, two-center trial of CBT versus treatment as usual (TAU) in 150 patients (103 females; mean age, 61 years.) who had completed active therapy for breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecological cancer. The study conformed to CONSORT guidelines. Primary outcomes were sleep diary measures at baseline, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up. Actigraphic sleep, health-related quality of life (QOL), psychopathology, and fatigue were secondary measures. CBT comprised five, small group sessions across consecutive weeks, after a manualized protocol. TAU represented normal clinical practice; the appropriate control for a clinical effectiveness study. RESULTS:CBT was associated with mean reductions in wakefulness of 55 minutes per night compared with no change in TAU. These outcomes were sustained 6 months after treatment. Standardized relative effect sizes were large for complaints of difficulty initiating sleep, waking from sleep during the night, and for sleep efficiency (percentage of time in bed spent asleep). CBT was associated with moderate to large effect sizes for five of seven QOL outcomes, including significant reduction in daytime fatigue. There was no significant interaction effect between any of these outcomes and baseline demographic, clinical, or sleep characteristics. CONCLUSION:CBT for insomnia may be both clinically effective and feasible to deliver in real world practice.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Persistent insomnia is a common complaint in cancer survivors, but is seldom satisfactorily addressed. The adaptation to cancer care of a validated, cost-effective intervention may offer a practicable solution. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of protocol-driven cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for insomnia, delivered by oncology nurses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomized, controlled, pragmatic, two-center trial of CBT versus treatment as usual (TAU) in 150 patients (103 females; mean age, 61 years.) who had completed active therapy for breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecological cancer. The study conformed to CONSORT guidelines. Primary outcomes were sleep diary measures at baseline, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up. Actigraphic sleep, health-related quality of life (QOL), psychopathology, and fatigue were secondary measures. CBT comprised five, small group sessions across consecutive weeks, after a manualized protocol. TAU represented normal clinical practice; the appropriate control for a clinical effectiveness study. RESULTS: CBT was associated with mean reductions in wakefulness of 55 minutes per night compared with no change in TAU. These outcomes were sustained 6 months after treatment. Standardized relative effect sizes were large for complaints of difficulty initiating sleep, waking from sleep during the night, and for sleep efficiency (percentage of time in bed spent asleep). CBT was associated with moderate to large effect sizes for five of seven QOL outcomes, including significant reduction in daytime fatigue. There was no significant interaction effect between any of these outcomes and baseline demographic, clinical, or sleep characteristics. CONCLUSION: CBT for insomnia may be both clinically effective and feasible to deliver in real world practice.
Authors: Lucie Casault; Josée Savard; Hans Ivers; Marie-Hélène Savard; Sébastien Simard Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Anita R Peoples; Sheila N Garland; Wilfred R Pigeon; Michael L Perlis; Julie Rya Wolf; Kathi L Heffner; Karen M Mustian; Charles E Heckler; Luke J Peppone; Charles S Kamen; Gary R Morrow; Joseph A Roscoe Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Nicole K Y Tang; S Tanya Lereya; Hayley Boulton; Michelle A Miller; Dieter Wolke; Francesco P Cappuccio Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-11-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Jennifer A Ligibel; Madhuri Are; K Scott Baker; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Lee Jones; Allison King; Grace H Ku; Elizabeth Kvale; Terry S Langbaum; Kristin Leonardi-Warren; Mary S McCabe; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Mary Ann Morgan; Javid J Moslehi; Tracey O'Connor; Linda Overholser; Electra D Paskett; Muhammad Raza; Karen L Syrjala; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Nicole McMillian; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Michael R Irwin; Pamela Hinds; Andrew Miller; Ann Berger; Paul Jacobsen; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Bryce B Reeve; Karen Mustian; Ann O'Mara; Jin-Shei Lai; Michael Fisch; David Cella Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kelley M Kidwell; Steven E Harte; Daniel F Hayes; Anna Maria Storniolo; Janet Carpenter; David A Flockhart; Vered Stearns; Daniel J Clauw; David A Williams; N Lynn Henry Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ann M Berger; Kathi Mooney; Amy Alvarez-Perez; William S Breitbart; Kristen M Carpenter; David Cella; Charles Cleeland; Efrat Dotan; Mario A Eisenberger; Carmen P Escalante; Paul B Jacobsen; Catherine Jankowski; Thomas LeBlanc; Jennifer A Ligibel; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Belinda Mandrell; Barbara A Murphy; Oxana Palesh; William F Pirl; Steven C Plaxe; Michelle B Riba; Hope S Rugo; Carolina Salvador; Lynne I Wagner; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Finly J Zachariah; Mary Anne Bergman; Courtney Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.908