Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized double-blind study of the Reliefband as an adjunct to standard antiemetics in patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goals

Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the Reliefband as an adjunct to standard antiemetics in patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Patients and methods

Forty-nine adult cancer patients receiving moderately-high or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to receive either the active Reliefband (n=26) or an inactive device (n=23). Patients continued to receive all scheduled and as needed antiemetic agents as prescribed. The device was worn the day of chemotherapy administration for 5 days (days 1–5). Patients maintained a daily dairy of nausea severity, vomiting and retching episodes, and antiemetic medications taken. Each patient completed a Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) and a tolerability survey at the conclusion of the study. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the number of vomiting episodes, severity of nausea and FLIE scores between the two groups.

Main results

Patients wearing the active Relifband experienced less vomiting (Reliefband 1.9 versus inactive device 4.6 mean episodes; p=0.05), retching (1.4 versus 3.6 mean episodes; p=0.05), and nausea severity (0.91 versus 1.65 mean cm/day; p=0.01) over the 5-day period compared to patients wearing the inactive device. Vomiting was statistically significantly reduced during the delayed period (0.42 versus 1; p=0.032), whereas nausea was significantly reduced during the acute (0.71 versus 2.3; p=0.028) and delayed (1.8 versus 3.3; p=0.020) periods. FLIE scores did not differ between the two treatment groups (91 versus 80; p=0.088).

Conclusions

This study suggests that patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy who experience nausea and vomiting despite scheduled antiemetics may benefit from the use of the Reliefband as an adjunct to antiemetics. Limitations of this study include differences in risk factors for emesis, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimens. A larger, better, controlled randomized study is needed to better define optimal use of this device.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abang AM, Takemoto MH, Pham T, Mandanas RA, Roy V, Selby GB, et al (2000) Efficacy and safety of oral granisetron versus i.v. granisetron in patients undergoing peripheral blood progenitor cell and bone marrow transplantation. Anticancer Drugs 11:(2)137–142

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anonymous (1995) Ondansetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Italian Group of Antiemetic Research. Ann Oncol 6:805–810

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anonymous (1999) ASHP Therapeutic guidelines on the pharmacologic management of nausea and vomiting in adult and pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy or undergoing surgery. Am J Healthsystem Pharm 56:(8)729–764

  4. Birch R, Weaver CH, Carson K, Buckner CD (1998) A randomized trial of once vs twice daily administration of intravenous granisetron with dexamethosone in patients receiving high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa and carboplatin. Bone 22:(7)685–8

  5. Bshunow PW, Matteson SE, Morrow G, Roscoe J (2002) Patients with intractable chemotherapy-induced nausea find acustimulation band helpful. Procedings of the annual meeting, Am Soc Clin Oncol 22: Abstract

  6. Campos D, Pereira JR, Reinhardt RR, Carracedo C, Poli S, Vogel C, et al (2001) Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis by the oral neurokinin-1 antagonist, MK-869, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone or with dexamethasone alone. J Clin Oncol 15 19:(6)1759–1767

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cocquyt V, Van Belle S, Reinhardt RR, Decramer ML, O'Brien M, Schellens JH et al (2001) Comparison of L-758,298, a prodrug for the selective neurokinin-1 antagonist, L-754,030, with ondansetron for the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Eur J Cancer 37:835–842

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dundee JW. (1990) Belfast experience with P6 acupuncture antiemesis. Ulster Med J 59:63–70

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dundee JW, Ghaly RG, Fitzpatrick KT, Abram WP, Lynch GA. (1989) Acupuncture prophylaxis of cancer chemotherapy-induced sickness. J R Soc Med 82:268–271

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dundee JW, McMillan CM (1990) Clinical uses of P6 acupuncture antiemesis. Acupunct Electrother Res 15:211–215

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dundee JW, Yang J (1990) Prolongation of the antiemetic action of P6 acupuncture by acupressure in patients having cancer chemotherapy. J R Soc Med 83:360–362

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dundee JW, Yang J, Ghaly RG (1990) Vomiting and chemotherapy. Lancet 335:541

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dundee JW, Yang J, McMillan C (1991) Non-invasive stimulation of the P6 (Neiguan) antiemetic acupuncture point in cancer chemotherapy. J R Soc Med 84:210–212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dranitsaris G, Leung P, Ciotti R, Ortega A, Spinthouri M, Liaropoulos L, et al (2001) A multinational study to measure the value that patients with cancer place on improved emesis control following cisplatin chemotherapy. Pharmacoeconomics 19(9):955–67

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gralla RJ, Osoba D, Kris MG, Kirkbride P, Hesketh PJ, Chinnery LW, et al (1999) Recommendations for the use of antiemetics: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology. [erratum appears in J Clin Oncol 1999 Dec;17(12):3860; J Clin Oncol 2000 Aug;18(16):3064]. J Clin Oncol 17:2971–2994

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Griffin AM, Butow PN, Coates AS, Childs AM, Ellis PM, Dunn SM, et al (1996) On the receiving end. V: Patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. Ann Onc 7:(2)189–195

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grunberg SM, Boutin N, Ireland A, Miner S, Silveira J, Ashikaga T (1996) Impact of nausea/vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score. Support Care Cancer 4:(6)435–439

    Google Scholar 

  18. Herrington JD, Kwan P, Young RR, Lagow E, Lagrone L, Riggs MW (2000) Randomized, multicenter comparison of oral granisetron and oral ondansetron for emetogenic chemotherapy. Pharmacotherapy 20:1318–1323

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hesketh PJ, Gralla RJ, Webb RT, Ueno W, DelPrete S, Bachinsky ME, et al (1999) Randomized phase II study of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist CJ-11, 974 in the control of cisplatin-induced emesis. J Clin Oncol 17:(1)338–343

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Grunberg SM, Beck T, Hainsworth JD, Harker G, et al (1997) Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 15:103–109

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pearson J, Blumentals W, Martin A, Carides A, Horgan K, Wittreich J, et al (2000) Validation of Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) Quality-of-life questionnaire for acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced emesis. Proceedings of the annual meeting, Am Soc Clin Oncol 20:2384

  22. Laszlo J (1983) Nausea and vomiting as major complications of cancer chemotherapy. Drugs [Suppl 1] 25:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lindley CM, Hirsch JD, O'Neill CV, Transau MC, Gilbert CS, Osterhaus JT (1992) Quality of life consequences of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Qual Life Res 1:331–340

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Navari RM, Reinhardt RR, Gralla RJ, Kris MG, Hesketh PJ, Khojasteh A, et al (1999) Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist. L-754, 030 Antiemetic Trials Group. New Eng J Med 340:(3)190–195

    Google Scholar 

  25. Orchard PJ, Rogosheske J, Burns L, Rydholm N, Larson H, DeFor TE, et al (1999) A prospective randomized trial of the anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron and granisetron during bone marrow transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 5:(6)386–393

    Google Scholar 

  26. Osoba D, Zee B, Warr D, Latreille J, Kaizer L, Pater J (1997) Effect of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life. The quality of life and symptom control committees of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Support Care Cancer 5:(4)307–313

  27. Osowski CL, Dix SP, Lynn M, Davidson T, Cohen L, Miyahara T, et al (1998) An open-label dose comparison study of ondansetron for the prevention of emesis associated with chemotherapy prior to bone marrow transplantation. Support Care Cancer 6:511–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Oyama H, Kaneda M, Katsumata N, Akechi T, Ohsuga M. (2000) Using the bedside wellness system during chemotherapy decreases fatigue and emesis in cancer patients. J Med Syst 24:173–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pearl ML, Fischer M, McCauley DL, Valea FA, Chalas E. (1999) Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as an adjunct for controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in gynecologic oncology patients. Cancer Nurs 22:307–311

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Saller R, Hellenbrecht D, Buhring M, Hess H. (1986) Enhancement of the antiemetic action of metoclopramide against cisplatin-induced emesis by transdermal electrical nerve stimulation. J Clin Pharmacol 26:115–119

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sigsgaard T, Herrstedt J, Handberg J, Kjaer M, Dombernowsky P (2001) Ondansetron plus metopimazine compared with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. J Clin Onc 19:(7)2091–2097

  32. Vincent CA, Richardson PH (1986) The evaluation of therapeutic acupuncture: concepts and methods. Pain. 24:(1)1–13

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina Hospitals, Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA

    Imad Treish, Stacy Shord, John Valgus, Donald Harvey, Jessica Nagy, Jennifer Stegal & Celeste Lindley

  2. University of North Carolina School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, CB7360, Beard Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599–7360 , USA

    Celeste Lindley

Authors
  1. Imad Treish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stacy Shord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Valgus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Donald Harvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jessica Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jennifer Stegal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Celeste Lindley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celeste Lindley.

Additional information

Supported in part by Woodside Biomedical, Inc., Carlsbad, California USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Treish, I., Shord, S., Valgus, J. et al. Randomized double-blind study of the Reliefband as an adjunct to standard antiemetics in patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 11, 516–521 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-003-0467-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-003-0467-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation