The efficacy of placebo for the treatment of cancer-related fatigue: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Supportive care in cancer Vol. 28; no. 4; pp. 1755 - 1764
• Main Authors: Junior, Pedro Nazareth Aguiar, Barreto, Carmelia Maria Noia, de Iracema Gomes Cubero, Daniel, del Giglio, Auro
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.04.2020; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Analysis; Cancer; Care and treatment; Chronic Disease; Chronic diseases; Clinical trials; Clinical Trials as Topic - methods; Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data; Drug therapy; Evidence-based medicine; Fatigue; Fatigue - etiology; Fatigue - therapy; Humans; Medical research; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Medicine, Experimental; Meta-analysis; Mind body relationship; Neoplasms - complications; Neoplasms - therapy; Nursing; Nursing Research; Oncology; Original Article; Pain Medicine; Palliative care; Physical Therapy Modalities; Placebo Effect; Prospective Studies; Rehabilitation Medicine; Response rates; Systematic review; Treatment Outcome; Palliative care; Fatigue; Placebo effect; Cancer
• ISSN: 0941-4355; 1433-7339
• DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-04977-w

Purpose Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom among patients with cancer. The efficacy of placebo, however, was never the main objective of any meta-analysis. Predicting the efficacy of placebo may facilitate researchers in designing future clinical trials for the treatment of CRF. Methods We performed a systematic review searching for prospective clinical trials comparing any treatment versus placebo for the treatment of CRF. We included studies that enrolled patients with any primary site of neoplasia and any stage of cancer. We excluded all studies that assessed fatigue related to any treatment. The primary endpoint of this study is the mean effect of placebo on fatigue according to the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness (FACIT-F) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) scales. The secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who reported improvement in fatigue (response rate). Results We found 520 studies, and 29 studies with 3758 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Placebo had a mean effect of + 4.88 (95%CI + 2.45 to + 7.29) using the FACIT-F scale, although it was statistically worse than the interventions studied ( p  = 0.005). Using the BFI scale, placebo had an average effect of + 0.64 (95%CI + 0.02 to + 1.30), although it was also worse than the other interventions studied ( p  = 0.002). In terms of the response rate, 29% (95%CI 25–32%) of patients taking a placebo reported a significant improvement in CRF compared with 36% of patients treated with other interventions ( p  = 0.030). Conclusions Placebo treatments had a significant effect on CRF, and predicting these effects may help design future studies for CRF.