scholarly journals Does acupressure help reduce nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients? A double blind randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002434
Author(s):  
Paul Perkins ◽  
Anne Parkinson ◽  
Rebecca Parker ◽  
Alison Blaken ◽  
Ralph K Akyea

IntroductionNausea and vomiting are common symptoms for patients with advanced cancer. While there is evidence for acupuncture point stimulation for treatment of these symptoms for patients having anticancer treatment, there is little for when they are not related to such treatment.ObjectiveTo determine whether acupressure at the pericardium 6 site can help in the treatment of nausea and vomiting suffered by palliative care patients with advanced cancer.Materials and methodsDouble blind randomised controlled trial—active versus placebo acupressure wristbands. In-patients with advanced cancer in two specialist palliative care units who fitted either or both of the following criteria were approached: Nausea that was at least moderate; Vomiting daily on average for the prior 3 days.Results57 patients were randomised to have either active or placebo acupressure wristbands. There was no difference in any of the outcome measures between the two groups: change from baseline number of vomits; Visual Analogue Scale for ‘did acupressure wristbands help you to feel better?’; total number of as needed doses of antiemetic medication; need for escalation of antiemetics.ConclusionsIn contrast to a previously published feasibility study, active acupressure wristbands were no better than placebo for specialist palliative care in-patients with advanced cancer and nausea and vomiting.

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaëlle Vanbutsele ◽  
Koen Pardon ◽  
Simon Van Belle ◽  
Veerle Surmont ◽  
Martine De Laat ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e025265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Oostendorp ◽  
Nicola White ◽  
Priscilla Harries ◽  
Sarah Yardley ◽  
Christopher Tomlinson ◽  
...  

IntroductionClinicians often struggle to recognise when palliative care patients are imminently dying (last 72 hours of life). A previous study identified the factors that expert palliative care doctors (with demonstrated prognostic skills) had used, to form a judgement about which patients were imminently dying. This protocol describes a study to evaluate whether an online training resource showing how experts weighted the importance of various symptoms and signs can teach medical students to formulate survival estimates for palliative care patients that are more similar to the experts’ estimates.Methods and analysisThis online double-blind randomised controlled trial will recruit at least 128 students in the penultimate or final year of medical school in the UK. Participants are asked to review three series of vignettes describing patients referred to palliative care and provide an estimate about the probability (0%–100%) that each patient will die within 72 hours. After the first series, students randomised to the intervention arm are given access to an online training resource. All participants are asked to complete a second series of vignettes. After 2 weeks, all participants are asked to complete a third series. The primary outcome will be the probability of death estimates (0%–100%) provided by students in the intervention and control arms for the second series of vignettes. Secondary outcomes include the maintenance effect at 2-week follow-up, weighting of individual symptoms and signs, and level of expertise (discrimination and consistency).Ethics and disseminationApproval has been obtained from the UCL Research Ethics Committee (8675/002) and local approvals will be obtained as appropriate. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals using an open access format and presented at academic conferences. We will also publicise our findings on the Marie Curie website.Trial registration numberNCT03360812; Pre-results.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-92
Author(s):  
Michael I Bennett ◽  
Matthew J Allsop ◽  
Peter Allen ◽  
Christine Allmark ◽  
Bridgette M Bewick ◽  
...  

Background Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions. Objective To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer. Design A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness. Participants Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care. Setting For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home. Interventions The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period. Results Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals. Limitations In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs. Future work There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e021965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J Allsop ◽  
Alexandra Wright-Hughes ◽  
Kath Black ◽  
Suzanne Hartley ◽  
Marie Fletcher ◽  
...  

IntroductionFor patients with advanced cancer, research shows that pain is frequent, burdensome and undertreated. Evidence-based approaches to support cancer pain management have been developed but have not been implemented within the context of the UK National Health Service. This protocol is for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for a multicomponent intervention for pain management in patients with advanced cancer.Methods and analysisThis trial will assess the feasibility of implementation and uptake of evidence-based interventions, developed and piloted as part of the Improving the Management of Pain from Advanced Cancer in the Community Programme grant, into routine clinical practice and determine whether there are potential differences with respect to patient-rated pain, patient pain knowledge and experience, healthcare use, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. 160 patients will receive either the intervention (usual care plus supported self-management) delivered within the oncology clinic and palliative care services by locally assigned community palliative care nurses, consisting of a self-management educational intervention and eHealth intervention for routine pain assessment and monitoring; or usual care. The primary outcomes are to assess implementation and uptake of the interventions, and differences in terms of pain severity. Secondary outcomes include pain interference, participant pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. Outcome assessment will be blinded and patient-reported outcome measures collected via post at 6 and 12 weeks following randomisation.Ethics and disseminationThis RCT has the potential to significantly influence National Health Service delivery to community-based patients with pain from advanced cancer. We aim to provide definitive evidence of whether two simple interventions delivered by community palliative care nurse in palliative care that support-self-management are clinically effective and cost-effective additions to standard community palliative care.Trial registration numberISRCTN18281271; Pre-results.


The Lancet ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 383 (9930) ◽  
pp. 1721-1730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Zimmermann ◽  
Nadia Swami ◽  
Monika Krzyzanowska ◽  
Breffni Hannon ◽  
Natasha Leighl ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document