Nassif Yasmim Jianjulio, Zanin Maria Elisa, Martinez-Sobalvarro Joselin Valeska, de Barros Carlos Marcelo, Pacheco-Neto Maurílio, Dos Reis Tiago Marques, Cardoso-Podestá Márcia Helena Miranda, Torres Larissa Helena
Department of Food and Drugs, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Rua Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, 700, Centro-Alfenas, MG, CEP: 37130-001, Brazil.
Department of Pharmacy, Health Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2024 Jun;397(6):3819-3827. doi: 10.1007/s00210-023-02925-4. Epub 2024 Jan 5.
One-third of cancer pain patients do not experience adequate pain relief using analgesic ladder by the World Health Organization. Interventional procedures, such as epidural morphine, have been considered. This study aimed to review the literature comparing the effects of epidural administration of morphine with the oral route. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with patients with gastrointestinal neoplasm. A search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases to identify studies published up to May 2023. The retrieved study was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and qualitatively synthesized. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (Prospero: CRD42021264728). Only one RCT, a crossover trial, was included in this systematic review. The study was conducted with ten participants (one withdrawal) and reported a statistically significant difference between both subcutaneous and epidural morphine solutions and oral morphine. The adverse events were not described. The included study presents some concerns of bias and low certainty of evidence on the effectiveness and security of epidural morphine administration. The available literature does not suffice to elucidate whether morphine administration via the epidural route is more effective than other routes. Further RCTs are necessary to improve the level of evidence on the effectiveness and risk-benefit of epidural morphine in the management of cancer pain in gastrointestinal neoplasm patients.
三分之一的癌症疼痛患者使用世界卫生组织的镇痛阶梯疗法未能获得充分的疼痛缓解。人们已考虑采用介入性治疗手段,如硬膜外注射吗啡。本研究旨在回顾比较硬膜外注射吗啡与口服吗啡效果的文献。这项系统评价纳入了针对胃肠道肿瘤患者开展的随机对照试验(RCT)。在PubMed、EMBASE、科学网、Scopus、Cochrane图书馆和CINAHL数据库中进行检索,以识别截至2023年5月发表的研究。使用偏倚风险2(RoB 2)工具对检索到的研究进行评估并进行定性综合分析。采用推荐分级、评估、制定与评价(GRADE)方法评估证据的确定性(国际前瞻性系统评价注册库:CRD42021264728)。本系统评价仅纳入了一项RCT,即交叉试验。该研究有10名参与者(1人退出),结果显示皮下注射和硬膜外注射吗啡溶液与口服吗啡之间存在统计学显著差异。未描述不良事件。纳入的研究在硬膜外注射吗啡的有效性和安全性方面存在一些偏倚问题且证据确定性较低。现有文献不足以阐明硬膜外途径给予吗啡是否比其他途径更有效。需要进一步开展随机对照试验,以提高硬膜外注射吗啡治疗胃肠道肿瘤患者癌症疼痛的有效性及风险效益方面的证据水平。