Non-pharmacological interventions may improve sleep quality, quality of life, and anxiety in lung cancer patientsNon-drug treatments may improve sleep and anxiety in lung cancer

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of non-pharmacological interventions on patients diagnosed with lung cancer. The study included a total population of 2604 patients across various settings to determine if non-drug modalities could improve specific quality of life metrics.

The primary intervention analyzed was non-pharmacological interventions, which were compared against usual care, placebo, or standard oncology care. Specific dosing and protocol details for these interventions were not reported in the data provided, but they were assessed across a broad range of clinical settings to determine their efficacy in managing symptoms associated with lung cancer.

The primary outcome measured was sleep quality. The meta-analysis indicated that non-pharmacological interventions may have a positive effect on sleep quality among lung cancer patients. However, specific effect sizes, absolute numbers, and p-values or confidence intervals were not reported for this outcome. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and anxiety levels; both of these measures also showed results suggesting that non-pharmacological interventions may have a positive effect.

Safety and tolerability data were not reported in the analysis. There were no specific figures provided regarding adverse events, serious adverse events, or treatment discontinuations. Consequently, the safety profile of these non-pharmacological interventions compared to standard care remains undefined in this specific synthesis.

These findings contribute to the broader landscape of supportive care in oncology. While previous evidence has explored various management strategies for lung cancer patients, such as multicomponent interventions for post-operative cases or acupressure for dyspnoea, this review specifically highlights the potential of non-pharmacological methods to address sleep and anxiety. The results suggest that these interventions may offer a viable supportive pathway, though they do not replace pharmacological standards where indicated.

Several methodological limitations were identified in the study. The quality of the evidence was categorized as low to moderate. This lower certainty level is likely due to the heterogeneity of non-pharmacological interventions and the variety of study designs included in the meta-analysis. Because of these limitations, the results should be interpreted with caution by clinicians.

For clinical practice, these findings suggest that non-pharmacological interventions can be considered as supportive measures to improve sleep quality, quality of life, and anxiety levels in patients with lung cancer. These interventions may provide a multi-faceted approach to patient well-being beyond standard medical treatments. However, because the evidence is not high-quality, clinicians should weigh these options based on individual patient needs. Several questions remain unanswered regarding the specific types of non-pharmacological interventions that yield the most significant improvements. Furthermore, larger, higher-quality, and more rigorously designed randomized controlled trials are still needed to confirm these findings and provide clearer guidance on which specific protocols offer the best outcomes for lung cancer patients.