University Hospitals and Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Pain Physician. 2011 May-Jun;14(3):219-48.
Intrathecal drug infusion therapy is usually considered when spinal-acting analgesics or antispasmodics administered via the oral or transdermal routes fail to control patients' pain or are associated with unacceptable side effects. The intrathecal administration of centrally acting agents bypasses the blood-brain-barrier resulting in much higher cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations while using reduced amounts of medication to achieve equipotent doses. The intrathecal approach is associated with higher rates of satisfactory pain relief and lower rates of treatment failures and technical complications compared to the epidural route. A paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has led to concern regarding proper use, selection criteria, and safety of these devices. Cost effectiveness and comparative therapies have now also become a focus of discussion.
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate and update the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of intrathecal infusions used in long-term management (> 6 months) of chronic pain. This paper will not focus on intrathecal administration for spasticity or movement disorders.
A systematic review of intrathecal infusion through implanted drug delivery devices for chronic pain.
Literature search through EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane databases, and systematic reviews as well as peer-reviewed non-indexed journals from 1980 to December 2010. Studies are assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for randomized trials. The level of evidence was determined using 5 levels of evidence, ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II, based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
The primary outcome measure for chronic non-cancer is pain relief (short-term relief ≤ one-year and long-term > one-year), whereas it is 3 months for cancer. Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake.
The level of evidence for this systematic review of non-cancer pain studies meeting the inclusion criteria of continuous use of an intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) for at least 12 months duration with at least 25 patients in the cohort, is Level II-3 based on USPSTF criteria. The level of evidence for this systemic review for cancer-related pain studies meeting the inclusion criteria of continuous use of IDDS for at least 3 months duration with at least 25 patients in the cohort is Level II-2 based on USPSTF criteria.
Based on the available evidence, the recommendation for intrathecal infusion systems for cancer-related pain is moderate recommendation based on the high quality of evidence and the recommendation is limited to moderate based on the moderate quality of evidence from non-randomized studies for non-cancer related pain.
当椎管内作用的镇痛药或抗痉挛药通过口服或经皮途径给药未能控制患者的疼痛或与不可接受的副作用相关时,通常会考虑鞘内药物输注治疗。鞘内给予中枢作用药物绕过血脑屏障,导致脑脊液 (CSF) 浓度显著升高,同时使用更少的药物达到等效剂量。与硬膜外途径相比,鞘内给药与更高的满意度疼痛缓解率、更低的治疗失败率和技术并发症率相关。由于缺乏随机对照试验 (RCT),人们对这些设备的正确使用、选择标准和安全性表示担忧。成本效益和比较治疗现在也成为讨论的焦点。
本系统评价的目的是评估和更新长期管理(> 6 个月)慢性疼痛中使用鞘内输注的疗效和安全性的现有证据。本文不关注鞘内给药治疗痉挛或运动障碍。
通过植入式药物输送装置进行鞘内输注治疗慢性疼痛的系统评价。
通过 EMBASE、Medline、Cochrane 数据库以及从 1980 年到 2010 年 12 月的系统评价和同行评审的非索引期刊进行文献检索。使用美国医疗保健研究与质量局 (AHRQ) 标准评估观察性研究,并使用 Cochrane 肌肉骨骼审查组标准评估随机试验。使用证据水平为 5 个级别,范围从 I 级到 III 级,其中 II 级有 3 个子类别,基于美国预防服务工作组 (USPSTF) 制定的证据质量。
非癌症慢性疼痛研究的主要结局测量是疼痛缓解(短期缓解≤ 1 年,长期缓解> 1 年),而癌症的主要结局测量是 3 个月。次要结局测量包括功能状态、心理状态、重返工作岗位和减少阿片类药物摄入的改善。
根据纳入标准,即至少 25 名患者在队列中持续使用鞘内药物输送系统(IDDS)至少 12 个月的非癌症疼痛研究的系统评价的证据水平为基于 USPSTF 标准的 II-3 级。基于 USPSTF 标准,至少 25 名患者在队列中持续使用 IDDS 至少 3 个月的癌症相关疼痛研究的系统评价的证据水平为 II-2 级。
基于现有证据,对于癌症相关疼痛,鞘内输注系统的推荐为中度推荐,这是基于高质量的证据;对于非癌症相关疼痛,由于缺乏随机对照试验的中等质量证据,推荐是有限的中度推荐。