Objective The use of estrogen and progesterone to manage vasomotor symptoms (i.e., hot flashes, night sweats) has declined due to concerns over their risks and there is an increased interest in alternate, effective, and low-risk treatments. This study reports the results of a randomized, controlled trial of clinical hypnosis in treating vasomotor symptoms among post-menopausal women. Methods Randomized, single-blind, controlled, clinical trial involving 187 post-menopausal women reporting a minimum of seven hot flashes per day, or at least 50 hot flashes a week at baseline between December 2008 and April 2012. Eligible participants received five weekly sessions of either clinical hypnosis or structured-attention control. Primary outcomes were hot flash frequency (subjectively and physiologically recorded) and hot flash score assessed by daily diaries at weeks 2–6, and 12. Secondary outcomes included measures of hot flash related daily interference, sleep quality and treatment satisfaction. Results In a modified intent-to-treat analysis that included all randomized participants that provided data, reported subjective hot flash frequency from baseline to week 12 showed a mean reduction of 55.82 hot flashes for the clinical hypnosis intervention (74.16%), versus a 12.89 hot flash reduction (17.13%) for the control (p<.001, 95% CI, 36.15–49.67). Mean reduction in hot flash score was 18.83 (80.32%) for the clinical hypnosis intervention as compared to 3.53 (15.38%) for the control (p<.001, 95% CI, 12.60–17.54). At 12 week follow-up, the mean reduction in physiologically monitored hot flashes was 5.92 (56.86%) for clinical hypnosis and .88 (9.94%) for the control (p<.001, 95% CI, 2.00–5.46). Secondary outcomes were significantly improved compared to control at 12 week follow-up in hot flash related interference (p<.001, 95% CI, 2.74–4.02), sleep quality (p<.001, 95% CI, 3.65–5.84), and treatment satisfaction (p<.001, 95% CI, 7.79–8.59). Conclusion Compared to a structured attention control, clinical hypnosis resulted in significant reductions in self-reported and physiologically measured hot flashes as well as hot flash scores in post-menopausal women.

There is growing interest in mind-body therapies as adjuncts to mainstream cancer treatment, and an increasing number of patients turn to these interventions for the control of emotional stress associated with cancer. Increased research funding has enabled many such interventions to be evaluated for their efficacy, including studies of mind-body interventions to reduce pain, anxiety, insomnia, anticipatory, and treatment-related nauseas, hot flashes, and improved mood. Mind-body treatments evaluated for their utility in oncology include relaxation therapies, biofeedback, meditation and hypnosis, yoga, art and music therapy, tai chi, and qigong. Although studies are not always methodologically sound and results mixed, a growing number of well-designed studies provide convincing evidence that mind-body techniques are beneficial adjuncts to cancer treatment. The evidence is sufficient to recommend further investigation and adoption of these techniques in mainstream oncology care.

Clinical evidence for the effectiveness of hypnosis in the treatment of acute, procedural pain was critically evaluated based on reports from randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Results from the 29 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria suggest that hypnosis decreases pain compared to standard care and attention control groups and that it is at least as effective as comparable adjunct psychological or behavioral therapies. In addition, applying hypnosis in multiple sessions prior to the day of the procedure produced the highest percentage of significant results. Hypnosis was most effective in minor surgical procedures. However, interpretations are limited by considerable risk of bias. Further studies using minimally effective control conditions and systematic control of intervention dose and timing are required to strengthen conclusions.

The findings suggest that the effect of alcohol outlet density on alcohol-related outcomes functions through an effect at the neighborhood level rather than at the individual level. Problem drinkers tend to be grouped in neighborhoods, an effect predicted by alcohol outlet density.

Hot flashes are prevalent and severe symptoms that can interfere with mood, sleep, and quality of life for women and men with cancer. The purpose of this article is to review existing literature on the risk factors, pathophysiology, and treatment of hot flashes in persons with cancer. Electronic searches were conducted to identify relevant, English-language literature published through June 15, 2012. Results indicated that risk factors for hot flashes in cancer include patient-related factors (eg, age, race/ethnicity, educational level, smoking history, cardiovascular risk including BMI, and genetics) and disease-related factors (eg, cancer diagnosis, and dose/type of treatment). In addition, although the pathophysiology of hot flashes has remained elusive, these symptoms are likely attributable to disruptions in thermoregulation and neurochemicals. Therapies that have been offered or tested fall into 4 broad categories: pharmacological, nutraceutical, surgical, and complementary/behavioral strategies. The evidence base for this broad range of therapies varies, with some treatments not yet having been fully tested or showing equivocal results. The evidence base surrounding all therapies is evaluated to enhance hot flash treatment decision making by clinicians and patients.