4.6 Article

Sipjeondaebo-tang in patients with cancer with anorexia: a protocol for a pilot, randomised, controlled trial

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011212

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI12C1889]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Cancer-related anorexia is the loss of appetite or desire to eat in patients with cancer. Although treatments for cancer-related anorexia do exist, patients have sought complementary and alternative medicine including herbal remedies, due to safety concerns. Sipjeondaebo-tang is one among other popular herbal medicines that are beneficial to management of anorexia in Korea. The purpose of this study is to examine the feasibility for a full randomised clinical trial of Sipjeondaebo-tang for cancer-related anorexia. Methods and analysis This study is a randomised, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trial of Sipjeondaebo-tang. For the study, 40 patients with cancer, aged 20-80years, who reported anorexia, will be recruited. The participants will receive either 3g of Sipjeondaebo-tang or a placebo, 3 times a day for 4weeks. The primary end point is a change in the anorexia/cachexia subscale (A/CS) of Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy (FAACT). The secondary end points include changes in the visual analogue scale (VAS) of appetite, cortisol and ghrelin. The outcomes will be measured on every visit. Each participant will visit once a week during 4weeks. Ethics and dissemination The present study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Dunsan Korean Medicine Hospital of Daejeon University (reference DJDSKH-15-03-2 (V.2.0)). The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conference. Trial registration number NCT02468141; Pre-results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available