Pancreatic cancer produces disabling abdominal pain,and the pain medical management for pancreatic cancer is often challenging because it mainly relies on the use of narcotics(major opioids).However,opioids often prov...
详细信息
Pancreatic cancer produces disabling abdominal pain,and the pain medical management for pancreatic cancer is often challenging because it mainly relies on the use of narcotics(major opioids).However,opioids often provide suboptimal pain relief,and the use of opioids can lead to patient tolerance and several side effects that considerably reduce the quality of life of pancreatic cancer patients.Endosonography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis(EUS-CPN)is an alternative for pain control in patients with nonsurgical pancreatic cancer;EUS-CPN consists of the injection of alcohol and a local anesthetic into the area of the celiac plexus to achieve chemical ablation of the nerve tissue.EUS-CPN via the transgastric approach is a safer and more accessible technique than the percutaneous approach.We have reviewed most of the studies that evaluate the efficacy of EUSCPN and that have compared the different approaches that have been performed by endosonographers.The efficacy of EUS-CPN varies from 50%to 94%in the different studies,and EUS-CPN has a pain relief duration of 4–8 wk.Several factors are involved in its efficacy,such as the onset of pain,previous use of chemotherapy,presence of metastatic disease,EUS-CPN technique,type of needle or neurolytic agent used,etc.According to this review,injection into the ganglia may be the best technique,and a good visualization of the ganglia is the best predictor for a good EUS-CPN response,although more studies are needed.However,any of the 4 different techniques could be used to perform EUS-CPN effectively with no differences in terms of complications between the techniques,but more studies are needed.The effect of EUS-CPN on pain improvement,patient survival and patient quality of life should be evaluated in well-designed randomized clinical trials.Further research also needs to be performed to clarify the best time frame in performing a EUS-CPN.
AIM:To evaluates the effectiveness and safety of the first generation,NS3/4A protease inhibitors(PIs) in clinical practice against chronic C virus,especially in patients with advanced fibrosis. METHODS:Prospective stu...
详细信息
AIM:To evaluates the effectiveness and safety of the first generation,NS3/4A protease inhibitors(PIs) in clinical practice against chronic C virus,especially in patients with advanced fibrosis. METHODS:Prospective study and non-experimental analysis of a multicentre cohort of 38 Spanish hospitals that includes patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1,treatment-na?ve(TN) or treatment-experienced(TE),who underwent triple therapy with the first generation NS3/4A protease inhibitors,boceprevir(BOC) and telaprevir(TVR),in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. The patients were treatment in routine practice settings. Data on the study population and on adverse clinical and virologic effects were compiled during the treatment period and during follow up.RESULTS:One thousand and fifty seven patients were included,405(38%) were treated with BOC and 652(62%) with TVR. Of this total,30%(n = 319) were TN and the remaining were TE:28%(n = 298) relapsers,12%(n = 123) partial responders(PR),25%(n = 260) null-responders(NR) and for 5%(n = 57) with prior response unknown. The rate of sustained virologic response(SVR) by intention-to-treatment(ITT) was greater in those treated with TVR(65%) than in those treated with BOC(52%)(P < 0.0001),whereas by modified intention-to-treatment(m ITT) no were found significant differences. By degree of fibrosis,56% of patients were F4 and the highest SVR rates were recorded in the non-F4 patients,both TN and TE. In the analysis by groups,the TN patients treated with TVR by ITT showed a higher SVR(P = 0.005). However,by m ITT there were no significant differences between BOC and TVR. In the multivariate analysis by m ITT,the significant SVR factors were relapsers,IL28 B CC and non-F4; the type of treatment(BOC or TVR) was not significant. The lowest SVR values were presented by the F4-NR patients,treated with BOC(46%) or with TVR(45%). 28% of the patients interrupted the treatment,mainly by non-viral response(51%):this outcome was more frequent in the TE than in the TN patients
暂无评论