The MATCH study was a large, pragmatic, preference-based, multisite RCT comparing Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) and Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) in distressed cancer survivors. Both MBCR and TCQ significantly improved mood disturbance (POMS TMD) compared to waitlist, with the largest effect size for MBCR vs waitlist (0.44) and a significant reduction for TCQ vs waitlist (estimate –5.13; 95% CI, –9.44 to –1.23; P = .01). MBCR had the greatest impact on tension, anger, and vigor, while TCQ was most effective for anger, depression, and vigor; subgroup analysis showed women benefited more from MBCR, and younger or advanced-stage patients benefited more from TCQ. In short, both MBCR and TCQ are viable, evidence-based options for improving mood in our cancer survivors, and it doesn’t seem to matter whether patients choose their intervention or are randomized—everyone does better than waitlist. These are probably underutilized in our communities and more widely available than appreciated.
Many cancer survivors have high levels of distress and psychosocial symptoms. Two mind-body interventions for treating these problems are Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) and Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ). However, while both interventions show efficacy compared with usual care, they have never been studied together. This trial was the first, to our knowledge, to incorporate innovative design features including patient choice while evaluating two interventions to treat distressed cancer survivors.
A preference-based multisite randomized comparative effectiveness trial design with broad pragmatic inclusion criteria was used. Participants with a preference for either MBCR or TCQ received their preferred intervention, while those without a preference were randomly assigned 1:1 into either intervention. Furthermore, participants were all randomly assigned 2:1 into immediate intervention or waitlist control. Total mood disturbance (TMD) on the Profile of Mood States after intervention was the primary outcome.
Five hundred eighty-seven participants provided baseline data, 75% were female, with an average age of 60.7 years. Of 12 cancer types, the most prevalent were breast (40.7%), prostate (11.2%), and GI (9.7%) cancers. Most had stage 0-II (50.1%) diagnoses, with 17% having more advanced disease. Approximately two thirds had a preference, with 57% of those choosing TCQ and 43% choosing MBCR. The remaining 36% were equally randomly assigned. Choosing a specific program or choosing to be randomly assigned had no significant effect on outcomes. Both the combined random assignment and preference MBCR and TCQ groups improved more than their respective waitlists on TMD scores with small to medium effects. The largest improvements occurred for MBCR on subscales of tension, anger, and vigor and in TCQ on anger, depression, and vigor.
This large, pragmatic trial demonstrated both mindfulness and TCQ interventions improved mood in distressed cancer survivors, whether they chose a program or chose to be randomly assigned.
This new subcutaneous anticoagulant, abelacimab, binds to the inactive form of FXI and blocks its activation by FXII. This drug seems significantly safer than DOAC’s in terms of bleeding risk. So much so that the study was stopped early due to a greater-than-expected reduction in bleeding events in the study arm. I hope this drug is also going to be studied for the treatment of VTE.
This is another supportive care study that confirms the benefit of Naldemdine in preventing constipation induced by opioids.
THC helped, but had more adverse events, (sedation, dizziness, etc.) THC was in addition to other prophylactic antiemetic, improved response rate from 8 to 24%.