Hypnotherapie

Cotanch, 1985 [19]

RCT

Children with various types of cancer, 20

1. Relaxation / self-hypnosis

2. Standard care Followed for 4 courses of chemotherapy.

Significant reduction in severity of nausea and vomiting and significant increase in oral intake post chemotherapy for (1)

Chemotherapy-related ANV can be reduced and oral intake use improved with the use of behavioral interventions.

Enqvist, 1997 [17]

RCT

Adult mamma carcinoma, 50

1. Hypnosis group (audio tape daily 4-6 days prior to surgery)

2. Standard care

Significant reduction of nausea (p=0.009), vomiting (p=0.049) and use of analgesics (p=0.02)

Preoperative relaxation and/or hypnotic techniques in breast surgery contribute to a reduction of both ANV and postoperative analgesic requirements.

Jacknow, 1994 [30]

RCT

Children with various types of cancer, 20

1. Hypnosis as a therapy for ANV, antiemetic medicine as a supplement when needed

2. Antiemetic medicine only

(1) Less antiemetic medicine use during first (p<0.04) and second course (p<0.02) of chemotherapy compared to (2)

(1) experienced less anticipatory nausea than (2) at 1 to 2 months post-diagnosis (p<0.02)

No differences in ANV severity.

Oddby-Muhrbeck, 1995 [16]

RCT

Adults mamma carcinoma, 70

1. Self-hypnosis

2. Blank tape with low background music

No significant differences in 24-hour period

(1) Less often recalled nausea and vomiting

No major effect of pre-operative suggestion for post-operative nausea and vomiting.

Researchers cannot rule out some implicit processing during balanced anesthesia.

Zeltzer, 1984 [20]

RCT

Children with various types of cancer, 51

1. Hypnosis

2. Supportive counselling

Both (1) and (2) were associated with significant reductions in nausea, vomiting, and the extent to which these symptoms affected patients (all p less than 0.001)

Chemotherapy-related nausea and emesis in children can be reduced with behavioral intervention.

Reductions maintained after intervention was discontinued.

Zeltzer, 1999 [15]

RCT

Children with various types of cancers, 54

1. Hypnosis

2. Non-hypnotic distraction/relaxation

3. Attention placebo

Children in the hypnosis group reported greatest reduction in anticipatory emesis (p<0.05).

Emetic potential of the chemotherapy and the prophylactic use of antiemetics each appeared to contribute to the overall severity of symptoms.

Snow, 2012 [38]

RCT

Adult lung cancer patients undergoing

bone marrow aspirates and biopsies, 80

1. Hypnosis

2. Standard care

(1) Difference in pain scores between the 2 groups was not statistically significant.

Brief hypnosis administered concurrently may not adequately

control pain.

Lang, 2008 [21]

RCT

Adults patients receiving a percutaneous tumour treatment, 201

1. Hypnotherapy

2. Empathic attention

3. Standard care

(1) Experienced less pain and anxiety than those in (2) and (3) at several time intervals and received significantly fewer median drug units (mean, 2.0; interquartile range [IQR], 1–4) than patients in groups (3) (mean, 3.0; IQR, 1.5–5.0; p=0.0147) and (2) (mean, 3.50; IQR, 2.0 –5.9; p=0.0026)

Procedural hypnosis including empathic attention reduces pain, anxiety, and medication use.

Empathic approaches without hypnosis that provide an external focus of attention and do not enhance patients’ self-coping can result in more adverse events.

Liossi, 1999 [22]

RCT

Paediatric leukaemia patients, 30

1. Hypnosis

2. A package of cognitive behavioural coping skills

3. No intervention

Patients of (1) and (2) reported less pain-related anxiety compared to (3)

(1) vs (3), p=0.0001; (2) vs (3), p=0.0056; (1) vs (2), p=0.0002.

Observed distress was also much reduced in (1) and (2)

(1) vs (3), p=0.0001; (2) vs (3), p=0.003; (1) vs (2), p=0.0025

Hypnosis and cognitive behavioural coping skills are effective in preparing paediatric oncology patients for bone marrow aspiration.

Liossi, 2003 [23]

RCT

Paediatric patients with leukaemia or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 80

1. Direct hypnosis with standard medical treatment

2. Indirect hypnosis with standard medical treatment

3. Attention control with standard medical treatment

4. Standard medical treatment

5. Manual-based clinical hypnosis

Patients in (1) and (2) reported less pain (p<0.001) and anxiety (p<0.001) and were rated as demonstrating less behavioural distress than those in (3) and (4) (p<0.001)

Hypnosis is effective in preparing paediatric oncology patients for lumbar puncture, but the presence of the therapist may be critical

Liossi, 2006 [24]

RCT

Paediatric patients with leukaemia or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 45

1. EMLA group (EMLA=mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine) was treated with EMLA cream applied to intact skin for approximately 60 min before the procedure;

2. EMLA plus hypnosis group (EMLA+hypnosis) was administered EMLA cream and was also treated with hypnosis;

3. the EMLA plus attention group (EMLA + attention) was administered EMLA cream and met with the therapist

Group (2) reported less anticipatory anxiety (p<0.001) and less procedure-related pain (p<0.001) and anxiety (p<0.001).

Group (2) were rated as demonstrating less behavioural distress during the procedure.

Level of hypnotizability was significantly associated with the magnitude of treatment Benefit.

Liossi, 2009 [25]

RCT

Children with various types of cancer, 45

1. EMLA group (EMLA=mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine) was treated with EMLA cream applied to intact skin for approximately 60 min before the procedure;

2. EMLA plus hypnosis group (EMLA+hypnosis) was administered EMLA cream and was also treated with hypnosis;

3. EMLA plus attention group (EMLA + attention) was administered EMLA cream and met with the therapist

Patients in group (2) reported less anticipatory anxiety, and less procedure-related pain and anxiety, and were rated as demonstrating less behavioural distress during the procedure than patients in groups (1) and (3)

Parents whose children were randomized to (2) experienced less anxiety during their child’s procedure than parents whose children had been randomized to the other two groups.

The therapeutic benefit of the brief hypnotic intervention was maintained in the follow-up.

Montgomery, 2007 [9]

RCT

Adults with mamma carcinoma, 200

1. 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session conducted by a psychologist

2. nondirective empathic listening (attention control)

(1) showed improved patient-reported pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset compared to (2) (p<0.0001)

Hypnosis was superior to attention control regarding propofol and lidocaine use; pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset at discharge; and institutional cost

Syrjala, 1992 [3]

RCT

Adults with haematological cancer, 67

1. Hypnosis training

2. Cognitive behavioural coping skills training

3. Therapist contact control

4. Treatment as usual

Hypnosis was effective in reducing reported oral pain (p=0.031)

Nausea, emesis and opioid use did not differ.

Zeltzer, 1982 [26]

CCT

Children and adolescents with leukaemia or non-Hodgkins lymphoma, 49

1. Hypnosis group

2. Non-hypnosis group

During bone marrow aspiration pain was reduced to a large extent in group (1) (p<0.001) and to a smaller but significant extent by nonhypnotic techniques (p<0.01), and anxiety was significantly reduced in group (1) alone (p<0.001).

During lumbar puncture only in group (1) significantly reduced pain (p<0.001); anxiety was reduced to a large degree by hypnosis (p<0.001) and to a smaller degree by nonhypnotic techniques (p<0.05).

Hypnosis was shown to be more effective than nonhypnotic techniques for reducing procedural distress in children and adolescents with cancer.

Liossi, 2001 [29]

RCT

Palliative patients with various cancer types, 50

1. Routine medical and psychological care + Hypnotherapy

2. Routine medical and psychological care

Hypnosis improved outcomes for anxiety (p<0.01)

No long-term follow-up

Those too unwell were excluded. (representative!)

David, 2013 [35]

RCT

Breast cancer patients, 15

1. Gabapentin 900 mg daily in three divided doses

2. Standardised hypnosis

There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of treatment of hot flushes.

Hypnotherapy and gabapentin demonstrate efficacy in improving hot flashes.

Elkins, 2011 ³⁶

RCT

Breast cancer patients, 60

1. Five weekly sessions of hypnosis

2. Wait-list control

Hypnosis intervention was more effective for participants who scored higher on measured hypnotisability.

Moderating role of hypnotizability may be useful to consider in treatment of hot flushes with the hypnosis intervention.

Mongomery, 2014 [37]

RCT

Breast cancer patients, 200

1. Cognitive behavioural therapy plus hypnosis (CBT+H)

2. Attention control

CBT+H group had significantly lower levels of fatigue at the end of radiotherapy and up to 6 month follow-up

Results support CBT+H to control fatigue in patients undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer.

Snow, 2012 [38]

RCT

Various cancer types, 80

1. Hypnosis

2. Standard care

Hypnosis intervention reduced the anxiety associated with procedure

Brief hypnosis administered concurrently reduces patient anxiety during bone marrow aspirates and biopsies.

Bukhtoiarov, 2007 [27]

CCT

Adults with malignant melanoma stage II-IV (treatment) and stomach tumours stage I-IV (control), 46

Patients in both groups received individually-tailored hypnosis:

1. Malignant melanoma patients

2. Stomach tumour patients

Correlation analysis of data on group 1 identified 7 negative coefficients (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01) exactly in the monocytic macrophageal link

Potential of hypnosis for cancer patient immunity, feasibility of differentiated targeting specific links of immune system.

Hockenberry-Eaton, 1989 [28]

RCT

Children with various cancer types, 22

1. Taught self-hypnosis

2. Standard care

Four courses of chemotherapy

Decrease in Harter Perceived Self-Competence Profile scores in (2) as opposed to an increase in (1)

Need for nurses to become actively involved in helping children develop effective coping skills during chemotherapy.

No p-values provided.

Montgomery, 2010 [18]

RCT

Adults with mamma carcinoma, 200

1. Hypnosis group

2. Control group

Hypnotic effects on postsurgical pain were partially mediated by pain expectancy (p<0.0001) but not by distress (p=0.12); hypnotic effects on postsurgical nausea were partially mediated by presurgical distress (p=0.02) but not by nausea expectancy ( p=0.10); hypnotic effects on postsurgical fatigue were partially mediated by both fatigue expectancy (p=0.0001) and presurgical distress (p=0.02)

Results demonstrate the mediational roles of response expectancies and emotional distress in clinical benefits associated with a hypnotic intervention.