Acupuncture for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting

Eleven systematic reviews (table 1) and 22 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (table 2) are included in this summary. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (Lyman 2018) has endorsed evidence-based guidelines produced by the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO) on the use of integrative therapies during and after breast cancer treatment (Greenlee 2017). The SIO guidelines are based on a systematic review of RCTs published up to 2015 and recommend acupressure and acupuncture for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Description of included studies

Acupoint stimulation (mainly P6)

Two older systematic reviews were identified that specifically addressed acupuncture and/or acupressure in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults (Chao 2009, Ezzo 2005, Ezzo 2006).They both included 11 trials in their analyses; the 2006 review had a total of 1247 patients in the 11 trials, while the 2009 review had 761 patients in their 11 included trials. The 2009 review had chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as one of several therapy-related adverse events studied in breast cancer patients (Chao 2009). Both reviews reported that stimulation of acupoints (mainly P6) reduced nausea and/or vomiting. The Cochrane review reported that the effect was mainly seen on vomiting, while the second review included mainly trials where emesis reduction was the endpoint.

Three further systematic reviews have been published since 2013. The first of these focused on acupuncture as an adjunct therapy in lung cancer patients (Chen 2013). It appears that there were either 2 or 3 RCTs of acupuncture and 2 of acupressure in chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting included, all of which were published after the Cochrane review. It is difficult to interpret the results of this review as the trials reported in the tables and text do not match. Therefore, the conclusion that all forms of acupuncture treatment assessed significantly attenuated the grade of nausea and vomiting cannot be confirmed.

A second systematic review, found 11 RCTs (Garcia 2013 and Garcia 2014). Four of these had been included in the 2005 Cochrane review and seven had not (five because they were published subsequently). Of the 11 RCTs, eight were at high risk of bias, in two the extent of bias was unclear with one at low risk of bias. The authors concluded that acupuncture is an appropriate adjunctive treatment, but more research is needed.

The third systematic review assessed acupuncture for a range of treatment-related symptoms in women with breast cancer (Jang 2020). Only two studies on CINV were included: a pilot RCT of electroacupuncture carried out in Australia (Beith 2012) and a later study published in Chinese (He 2017). The mixed results of these trials meant that there was insufficient evidence to assess any benefit from acupuncture.

Three further RCTs tested acupuncture at the same point as above (P6) (Liu 2015, Rithirangsriroj 2015, Widgren 2017). Two of these compared acupuncture against conventional anti-emetic medication (Liu 2015, Rithirangsriroj 2015). Wrist-ankle acupuncture combined with ginger moxibustion was used in one trial in 60 gynaecological cancer patients (Liu 2015). The acupuncture combination was reported to be more effective but the trial was not blinded and so patient expectation may have influenced the result.

A trial (n=70) comparing acupuncture at P6 point with ondansetron also reported better effects of the acupuncture treatment but some details of the methods used in this trial are missing and again patient expectation may have had an impact (Rithirangsriroj 2015). When acupuncture was compared with sham, however, no effects were seen although this trial (n=68) may not have been sufficiently powered to detect a difference and more anti-emetic medication was required by the sham group (Widgren 2017).

One trial attempted to confirm whether receiving acupuncture 30 minutes before chemotherapy was more effective than 30 minutes after chemotherapy (Cheng 2020). The trial involved 105 patients with lung cancer.  The P6 and ST36 (a point below the knee) acupoints were needled.  Both acupuncture regimens appeared better than control as did the pre versus post acupuncture but the reporting of methods and results was not completely clear.

Six further RCTs (7 reports) investigated the effects of acupressure at the P6 point (Genc 2013, Molassiotis 2013, Molassiotis 2014, Kaur 2015, Suh 2012, Avc 2016, Perkins 2020). Three trials of acupressure at P6 using a wrist band reported no difference between this and a ‘placebo band’ (Genc 2013, Molassiotis 2013, Molassiotis 2014, Perkins 2020).

The first of these trials involved a large sample of 500 patients and was rigorously reported (Molassiotis 2013, Molassiotis 2014).  The second trial was in 120 patients with breast, gynaecological or lung cancer (Genc 2013). No difference was found between a wristband and a ‘placebo band’ but details of the placebo band and of some of the methods were missing. A similar result was found in a trial of an ‘active’ versus a ‘placebo’ band in 57 palliative care patients with advanced cancer (Perkins 2020). A fourth acupressure trial reported synergistic effects of P6 acupressure with nurse-provided counselling for breast cancer patients (Suh 2012). The fifth study reported positive effects of a wristband compared with finger pressure but suffered from a number of methodological problems (Avc 2016). The sixth study, carried out 40 patients in India, reported positive effects of self-applied acupressure after 24 hours but the control intervention is unclear (Kaur 2015).

Other forms of acupuncture/acupoint stimulation at other points

Three systematic reviews are available. One focused on a treatment approach whereby medication is injected at acupuncture points and so the effects of acupuncture therapy alone cannot be determined (Cheon 2014). Two assessed specific forms of treatment; one focused on self-acupressure and only located 2 studies (Song 2015). Only one of these was an RCT and, therefore, there was not a sufficient basis for firm conclusions on effectiveness. The final review focused on auricular therapy (ear acupuncture) (Tan 2014). No between-group comparison was reported which does not allow conclusions to be drawn, particularly as significant methodological flaws were identified.

Two further RCTs of auricular acupressure using auricular seeds reported conflicting results: one (n=48) positive results compared with no acupressure and the other (n=110) reporting no difference between specific and non-specific points (Eghbali 2015, Kong 2018).

Acupuncture at several points was reported to be more effective than no acupuncture but key details of the study (n=56) were missing, it was not blinded and was self-assessed (Zhou 2017). Another RCT conducted in China was a multicentre study involving 134 patients with advanced cancer (Li 2020).  Again, a range of points was used and sham acupoints used for comparison. No significant difference was seen in complete response rates although severity was reported to be less with true acupuncture. No difference in effect was also observed in a trial (n=103) of acustimulation at the K1 acupoint compared with electrostimulation at a placebo point (Shen 2015).

No significant difference was found between electroacupuncture and sham or placebo electroacupuncture in two RCTs , (McKeon 2015, n=153; Xie 2017, n=142). These findings are in contrast to those of a third trial (Zhang 2014, n=72). Stimulation at the acupoints was reported to improve emesis and reduce nausea in the delayed phase of chemotherapy but equivalent additive effects were not recorded in the acute phase.

One RCT combined moxibustion with acupoint massage and reported better effects than with anti-emetic therapy but these results have not been confirmed by subsequent trials and the risk of bias would be high due to the obvious difference between the treatments (Fang 2012).

Moxibustion

The two most recent systematic reviews focus on moxibustion. The first, a Cochrane review, assessed moxibustion for various indications related to cancer treatment (Zhang 2018). Nine trials suggested evidence of beneficial effects when compared to sham (n=1) or used alongside conventional drug treatment (n=8). High risk of bias, however, was identified in all these trials. The second review of moxibustion included more trials and found evidence of effects compared with no treatment but no effects when used with drug treatment (Huang 2017). Risk of bias was again a concern but the reason for the difference in conclusions of the two reviews is unclear.

Acupuncture/acupressure in children with cancer

One review described as systematic included two RCTs in children, one of acupuncture and one of acupressure (Momani 2017). No formal appraisal was carried out and no conclusions could be reached as the first trial only included 11 patients and the second found no difference between sham and true acupressure. Two subsequent RCTs, one of finger acupressure at true and sham points and the other using acupressure versus sham wrist bands, reported conflicting findings (Ghezelbash 2017; Dupuis 2018).

An RCT of laser acupuncture versus sham laser acupuncture was carried out in children and adolescents (Varajao 2018). Reduced nausea and vomiting episodes were reported but the trial was small (n= 18) and these findings have not been replicated in other studies.

References