目的:评价中药配合三阶梯止痛与单纯三阶梯止痛比较治疗癌性疼痛的有效性和安全性。方法:采用Cochrane系统评价方法，计算机检索Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库、MEDLINE、CBM、CNKI、VIP和万方；同时手检相关期刊和会议论文集，纳入有关中药配合三阶梯止痛治疗癌性疼痛的随机对照试验，并按Cochrane系统评价员手册4.2.2版推荐的质量评价标准评价纳入研究质量，对同质的研究进行Meta分析。结果:共检索到符合纳入标准的中文文献12篇（1366例患者）。文献质量评价结果显示，所有文献均为C级。Meta分析结果显示，中药配合三阶梯止痛治疗癌痛在近期镇痛效果、提高生活质量和减少不良反应发生方面优于单纯三阶梯止痛药治疗。结论:中药配合三阶梯止痛治疗癌性疼痛优于单纯三阶梯止痛治疗。但由于纳入试验研究的方法学质量普遍较低，期待更多设计合理、方法科学的大样本多中心随机双盲对照临床试验，提供高质量的证据。
摘要:目的: 探讨深部痛点阻滞在治疗顽固性癌痛患者中的作用。 方法 : 将156例顽固性癌痛患者,随机分为深部痛点阻滞组及对照组,每组78例。深部痛点阻滞组根据疼痛部位,应用软组织外科学理论找出相应压痛点,给予痛点深部阻滞治疗;对照组找出压痛点但仅按三阶梯用药原则给予口服药物治疗。 结果 : 深部痛点阻滞组及对照组两组患者经治疗后疼痛控制均较理想(深部痛点阻滞组VAS13, 对照组VAS17),但是深部痛点阻滞组吗啡用量明显少于对照组(吗啡日平用量深部痛点阻滞组为335mg, 对照组为15287 mg)。便秘的发生率深部痛点阻滞组为5384%,对照组为7692%。 结论 : 深部痛点阻滞能较好的控制顽固性癌痛,同时可明显减少吗啡的用量,副作用相对发生要少。Abstract: Objective: To investigate the effect of the deeppressed pain points injection on the refractory cancer pain and provide reference for relieving the cancer pain. Methods : One hundred and fiftysix patients with refractory cancer pain were diagnosed by the soft tissue surgery,finding the pain point by pressing deeply,the patients with deeppressed pain points were divided into deeppressed pain points injection group and control group randomly, The patients in deeppressed pain points injection group were treated with deeppressed pain points injection; the patients in control group were treated with drugs according with the WHO analgesic ladder. Results : The patients in deeppressed pain points injection group got the same pain relief as those in control group (VAS 13 in deeppressed pain points injection group, 17 in control group ),but the daily dose of morphine in deeppressed pain points injection group was less than that incontrol group (morphine 335mg/day in deeppressed pain points injection group,15287mg/day in control group ) significantly. There was 5384% patients with constipation in deeppressed pain points injection group, 7692% in control group. Conclusion : The refractory cancer pain can be controlled effectively by the deeppressed pain point injection and the daily dose of morphine to control the cancer pain is decreased significantly. The side effect in deeppressed pain points injection group was less than that in control group.
ObjectiveTo explore the role of clinical pharmacists in caring for one patient with breast cancer complicated with multiple metastases. MethodsClinical pharmacists monitored the entire treatment process of a patient with breast cancer complicated with multiple metastases. Blood glucose level was recorded, and the pharmacists evaluated the patient's pain, gave appropriate doses of cancer pain drugs, and responded positively to the hand-foot syndrome (HFS) induced by chemotherapeutic drugs. ResultsWith the participation of the pharmacists, clinicians adjusted the medication. Ideal control of cancer pain and blood glucose was achieved with successful chemotherapy, and HFS fully recovered. ConclusionPharmaceutical care by clinical pharmacists can assist clinicians to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drug use.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of transdermal fentanyl versus oral morphine for moderate/severe cancer pain. MethodsDatabases such as The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2014), PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, CBM and WanFang Data were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of transdermal fentanyl versus oral morphine for moderate/severe cancer pain up to January 2014. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1.0 software. ResultsA total of 35 RCTs involved 3 406 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, there was no significant difference in effectiveness between transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine for moderate/severe cancer pain (OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.27, P=0.99). Compared with oral morphine, transdermal fentanyl was better in lowering the incidences of constipation, nausea and vomiting, lethargy and urinary retention; but transdermal fentanyl increased the incidences of skin rashes and itch (P < 0.05). ConclusionTransdermal fentanyl is as effective as oral morphine in the treatment of moderate/severe cancer pain, and transdermal fentanyl causes less side effects. Due to poor quality of the included studies, the above conclusion should be verified by further conducting more high quality RCTs.