該國研究人員公布的最新研究成果顯示,，針灸可緩解癌癥患者在接受放射治療時通常出現(xiàn)的作嘔、惡心等副作用,。
瑞典研究人員調(diào)查了215名癌癥患者通過針灸緩解放射治療副作用的效果,，并將他們與另外62名接受傳統(tǒng)治療的癌癥患者比較,。研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn),，在接受針灸治療的癌癥患者中,，只有37％在治療中感覺惡心，7％出現(xiàn)嘔吐現(xiàn)象,。與此相對,，接受傳統(tǒng)治療的患者中，這兩個比例分別是63％和15％,，明顯高于前者,。
在接受針灸治療的215名癌癥患者中，109人接受了真正的針灸治療,，另外106名則只是接受安慰性的模擬針灸治療,，即僅使用鈍頭的伸縮針按壓在患者皮膚上，并沒有真正刺進(jìn)去,。研究人員比較之后發(fā)現(xiàn),，兩者的療效基本一樣，也就是說病人自身的心理預(yù)期非常重要,。
對此,，研究人員說，下一步將研究針灸療法真正起作用的機(jī)理,，以便將研究成果應(yīng)用到癌癥治療中，減輕病人的痛苦,。（生物谷Bioon.com）
生物谷推薦原文出處：
PLoS ONE 6(3): e14766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014766
Getting the Grip on Nonspecific Treatment Effects: Emesis in Patients Randomized to Acupuncture or Sham Compared to Patients Receiving Standard Care
Anna Enblom1,2,3*, Mats Lekander3,4, Mats Hammar5, Anna Johnsson6, Erik Onel?v7, Martin Ingvar3, Gunnar Steineck7,8, Sussanne B?rjeson1,9
Background
It is not known whether or not delivering acupuncture triggers mechanisms cited as placebo and if acupuncture or sham reduces radiotherapy-induced emesis more than standard care.
Methodology/Principal Findings
Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy over abdominal/pelvic regions were randomized to verum (penetrating) acupuncture (n = 109; 99 provided data) in the alleged antiemetic acupuncture point PC6 or sham acupuncture (n = 106; 101 provided data) performed with a telescopic non-penetrating needle at a sham point 2–3 times/week during the whole radiotherapy period. The acupuncture cohort was compared to a reference cohort receiving standard care (n = 62; 62 provided data). The occurrence of emesis in each group was compared after a mean dose of 27 Gray. Nausea and vomiting were experienced during the preceding week by 37 and 8% in the verum acupuncture group, 38 and 7% in the sham acupuncture group and 63 and 15% in the standard care group, respectively. The lower occurrence of nausea in the acupuncture cohort (verum and sham) compared to patients receiving standard care (37% versus 63%, relative risk (RR) 0.6, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.5–0.8) was also true after adjustment for potential confounding factors for nausea (RR 0.8, CI 0.6 to 0.9). Nausea intensity was lower in the acupuncture cohort (78% no nausea, 13% a little, 8% moderate, 1% much) compared to the standard care cohort (52% no nausea, 32% a little, 15% moderate, 2% much) (p = 0.002). The acupuncture cohort expected antiemetic effects from their treatment (95%). Patients who expected nausea had increased risk for nausea compared to patients who expected low risk for nausea (RR 1.6; Cl 1.2–2.4).
Conclusions/Significance
Patients treated with verum or sham acupuncture experienced less nausea and vomiting compared to patients receiving standard care, possibly through a general care effect or due to the high level of patient expectancy.
