Acupuncture Versus Sham for Radiotherapy-Induced Emesis
The aim of this study is to evaluate if acupuncture prevents or reduces nausea or vomiting during radiotherapy
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:||Acupuncture Compared To Sham With a Placebo-Needle in Radiotherapy-Induced Nausea - a Randomised Controlled Study|
- Number of patients with at least one episode of nausea during the whole radiotherapy treatment period [ Time Frame: The radiotherapy treatment period (md 5 weeks) ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Secondary outcome measures are the summed number of days with nausea, intensity of nausea, number of patients and summed number of days with vomiting, belief in the antiemetic effects and interest in receiving needling in the future [ Time Frame: From acupunture start until 4 weeks after treatment stopped ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
|Study Start Date:||January 2004|
|Study Completion Date:||March 2007|
|Primary Completion Date:||March 2007 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Acupuncture was administered bilaterally to the standard antiemetic point2-4 pericardium six (PC6) located between the tendons of palmaris longus and flexor carpii radialis at two body-inches proximal of the wrist crease. Sharp needles, diameter 0.25 x length 40 millimetres, were inserted into a depth of a half body-inch. One body-inch (or a "cun" in traditional Chinese medicine context) is equivalent to the greatest width of the individual patients´ thumb at the distal phalanx, approximately one and a half centimetres or one American thumb. The needles were manipulated three times (at the start, middle and end of the treatment session) by twirling, thrusting and lifting until deqi occurred.
Other Name: Invasive acupuncture
|Placebo Comparator: Sham||
Sham acupuncture was administered bilaterally to a non-acupuncture point two body-inches proximal of PC6 with the telescopic Park sham device16, 0.30 x 40 millimetres (fully extended length). That needle looks identical with a real needle but is blunted and glides upwards into its handle instead of penetrating, which gives an illusion of penetration. The marking tubes hold the needles in place. The therapist gave an illusion of manipulation by turning the needle three times, each time for a couple of seconds until the needle touched the skin, but no deqi occurred. Except when placing and manipulating the sham needle, it was not pressed against the skin at all.
Treatment with acupuncture is, despite sometimes unclear evidence, increasing in cancer care. Acupuncture is used for indications such as pain and nausea, but for radiotherapy (RT) induced nausea it is still an unexplored treatment. For evaluation of the method, the use of sham acupuncture as a control treatment provides a tool resembling placebo for drugs. The aim of the studt is therefore to investigate whether acupuncture reduces nausea caused by radiotherapy in a patient group with a >50% risk of experiencing the symptoms (abdominal or pelvic region). Patients are randomised to invasive acupuncture (IA) or placebo acupuncture (PA) 30 min, 2-3 times/week during the whole RT period. IA is administered bilaterally to the point PC6 using an invasive needle and PA with a needle, which looks identical but is not pointed and is not fixed in its handle. When this comes into contact with the surface of the skin and gives a feeling of penetration it glides upwards in its handle and is therefore shortened, which gives an illusion that the needle has entered the tissue. Nausea and vomiting is documented in diaries and questionnaires under the entire treatment period as well as two and four weeks after radiotherapy.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00621660
|Linköping, Sweden, 58185|
|Principal Investigator:||Sussanne Börjeson, PhD||Linköping University|