Research

The Use of Valeriana officinalis (Valerian) in Improving Sleep in Patients Who Are Undergoing Treatment for Cancer: A Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Study (NCCTG Trial, N01C5)


 

Figure 1.

Consort Diagram

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics
VALERIAN (N = 102)PLACEBO (N = 100)P
Gender0.387
Female82 (80%)85 (85%)
Age (years)0.546
Mean (SD)59.5 (11.95)58.3 (12.71)
Sleep scale group0.963
Mildly impaired67 (66%)66 (66%)
Moderately or severely impaired35 (34%)34 (34%)
Sleep scale score0.841
Mean (SD)6.6 (1.43)6.6 (1.69)
Primary tumor site0.526
Breast64 (63%)66 (67%)
Colon9 (9%)5 (5%)
Prostate3 (3%)1 (1%)
Other25 (25%)27 (27%)
Tumor status0.322
Resected with no residual64 (64%)71 (71%)
Resected with known residual17 (17%)12 (13%)
Unresected19 (19%)13 (14%)
Treatment type0.966
Radiation therapy6 (5.9%)6 (6%)
Parenteral chemotherapy38 (37%)39 (39%)
Oral therapy40 (39%)40 (40%)
Combined modality18 (18%)15 (15%)
Concurrent radiation0.926
Yes23 (23%)22 (22%)
Concurrent cancer therapy0.679
Yes56 (55%)52 (53%)
Planned or concurrent hormone0.667
Yes51 (51%)53 (54%)
Table 2. Distribution of Baseline Assessment Scores
VALERIAN (N = 101)PLACEBO (N = 96)P
PSQI total10.695
Mean (SD)41.3 (13.92)42.4 (14.97)
POMS-SF total0.883
Mean (SD)65.0 (14.28)63.9 (16.46)
FOSQ total0.927
Mean (SD)73.7 (16.07)72.8 (18.37)
Fatigue Now0.285
Mean (SD)45.7 (24.41)49.4 (25.00)
Usual Fatigue0.216
Mean (SD)46.8 (23.27)51.1 (24.73)
Worst Fatigue0.522
Mean (SD)35.2 (24.67)37.9 (26.37)
Total Interference0.268
Mean (SD)61.4 (25.05)57.1 (27.37)

The primary end point of treatment effectiveness was measured using the normalized AUC calculated using baseline, week 4, and week 8 PSQI total scores. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test P value for the total PSQI score was nonsignificant (valerian AUC = 51.4, SD = 16; placebo AUC = 49.7, SD = 15; P = 0.696) (Figure 2). Similarly the FOSQ was not significantly different between groups either overall or on any subscale score.

Figure 2.

Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index Overall Score, AUC

Supplemental and exploratory analyses using changes from baseline, however, showed a significant difference in the change from baseline in the amount of sleep at night at week 4 (P = 0.008), favoring the valerian group. Change from baseline in the categorical value for sleep latency was also significantly different at week 4, where 10% of valerian patients indicated longer time to fall asleep compared to 28% on placebo and 43% of valerian patients reported less time to fall asleep compared to 32% on placebo (P = 0.03) (Table 3). The ITT analysis indicated that about 9% more patients experienced a success on valerian relative to placebo, but this was not statistically significant. When scores on the PSQI were divided into ≤5 and >5 (this latter group representing sleep problems), there were fewer patients in the valerian group having sleep problems by week 8 (64% vs 80%, P = 0.56).

Table 3. Percent of patients reporting categorical changes from baseline on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index Subscales
VALERIANPLACEBOP
Sleep quality0.199
Week 4
Worse2 (3%)5 (8%)
Same33 (49%)37 (57%)
Better33 (49%)23 (35%)
Week 80.927
Worse3 (5%)2 (3%)
Same26 (41%)25 (42%)
Better35 (55%)32 (54%)
Sleep latency0.030
Week 4
Worse6 (10%)18 (28%)
Same30 (48%)26 (40%)
Better27 (43%)21 (32%)
Week 80.072
Worse3 (5%)11 (18%)
Same28 (47%)29 (48%)
Better27 (47%)21 (34%)
Sleep duration0.244
Week 4
Worse6 (9%)10 (16%)
Same26 (39%)29 (46%)
Better34 (52%)24 (38%)
Week 80.148
Worse8 (13%)4 (7%)
Same19 (31%)28 (48%)
Better34 (56%)27 (46%)
Sleep efficiency0.295
Week 4
Worse7 (12%)13 (22%)
Same26 (43%)23 (39%)
Better28 (46%)23 (39%)
Week 80.758
Worse11 (19%)9 (16%)
Same19 (33%)22 (39%)
Better28 (48%)25 (45%)
Sleep disturbance0.738
Week 4
Worse9 (15%)11 (18%)
Same41 (66%)40 (67%)
Better12 (19%)9 (15%)
Week 80.177
Worse10 (16%)7 (13%)
Same35 (57%)41 (73%)
Better16 (26%)8 (14%)
Daytime dysfunction0.114
Week 4
Worse6 (9%)13 (19%)
Same42 (60%)40 (60%)
Better22 (31%)14 (21%)
Week 80.478
Worse6 (10%)8 (13%)
Same27 (43%)31 (50%)
Better30 (48%)23 (37%)

While the POMS AUC scores indicated no difference between treatment arms, the mean change from baseline at weeks 4 and 8 was significantly different for the Fatigue-Inertia subscale at weeks 4 (P = 0.004) and 8 (P = 0.02), with the valerian arm reporting better scores (Table 4). On the BFI, the valerian arm scored significantly better than the placebo arm in the mean change from baseline at weeks 4 and 8 on the Fatigue Now (P = 0.003 and P = 0.01, respectively) and Usual Fatigue (P = 0.02 and P = 0.046, respectively) items (Table 4).

Table 4. Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and Profile of Mood States (POMS): Change from Baseline—Higher Numbers Are Better
SIDE EFFECTWEEKVALERIANPLACEBOP
BFI
Fatigue NowWeek 413.21.5<0.01
Week 822.110.5<0.01
Usual FatigueWeek 412.84.20.02
Week 819.410.00.05
Worst FatigueWeek 411.23.20.03
Week 814.812.40.65
Activity InterferenceWeek 46.24.10.75
Week 812.310.80.75
POMS
Anger-HostilityWeek 43.52.00.53
Week 83.94.20.89
Vigor-ActivityWeek 42.0-0.40.43
Week 82.04.70.34
Depression-DejectionWeek 43.75.50.21
Week 83.75.40.25
Confusion-BewildermentWeek 44.82.60.26
Week 85.33.40.79
Fatigue-InertiaWeek 413.92.8<0.01
Week 817.59.20.02
TensionAnxietyWeek 46.35.60.85
Week 89.28.90.54
Total scoreWeek 45.73.00.19
Week 86.96.00.90

In terms of toxicity, there were no significant differences between arms for the self-reported side effect items (headache, trouble waking, nausea) at baseline, week 4, or week 8 (Table 5). The valerian arm change from baseline at both weeks 4 and 8 showed significant improvement in drowsiness (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03, respectively) and sleep problems (P = 0.005 and P = 0.03, respectively) compared to placebo (Table 5). The maximum severity over time for each self-reported toxicity resulted in no significant differences between arms. There was a significant difference in the CTCAE reporting of alkaline phosphatase, with the placebo arm having a higher incidence of grade 1 toxicity (P = 0.049).

Pages

Recommended Reading

Cancer Breakthrough Pain in the Presence of Cancer-Related Chronic Pain: Fact versus Perceptions of Health-Care Providers and Patients
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
The Challenges of Treating Patients with Cancer Pain
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
A Conceptual Solution to Improve the Management of Cancer-Related Breakthrough Pain
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Cost–Utility Analysis of Palonosetron-Based Therapy in Preventing Emesis Among Breast Cancer Patients
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Pilot Study of the Prospective Identification of Changes in Cognitive Function During Chemotherapy Treatment for Advanced Ovarian Cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Retrospective analysis of communication with patients undergoing radiological breast biopsy
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Letter - Acneiform Rash as a Reaction to Radiotherapy in a Breast Cancer Patient
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Efficacy and Safety of Influenza Vaccination During Chemotherapy Treatment
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Patient-reported outcomes in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a review
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Acute Kidney Injury in Cancer Patients
MDedge Hematology and Oncology