Qu D, Zhang Z, Yu X, Zhao J, Qiu F, Huang J
Cancer Institute (Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention & Intervention National Ministry of Education Provincial Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Medical Sciences), The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Community Health Service Center, Hangzhou, China.
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 Nov;25(6):970-979. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12397. Epub 2015 Oct 21.
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom affecting 60-90% of cancer survivors, and effective management for CRF is not yet available. Recently, an increasing number of trials examining the use of psychotropic drugs for the treatment of CRF have been performed, but these trials have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the effect and safety of psychotropic drugs for the management of CRF. Ten eligible trials of the psychotropic drugs methylphenidate and modafinil in a total of 1582 participants treated for CRF were subjected to statistical analyses. A meta-analysis of seven of these studies indicated that methylphenidate was superior to placebo for the treatment of CRF. Another meta-analysis of three studies evaluating modafinil found that this drug was no better than placebo. Adverse events were similar between both methylphenidate and modafinil and the placebo groups. Our meta-analysis indicated that the treatment of CRF with methylphenidate appears to be effective, whereas modafinil provides no benefit. These results of this analysis warrant further trials to confirm the efficacy and safety of psychotropic drugs for the treatment of CRF.
癌症相关疲劳（CRF）是一种常见症状，影响着60%至90%的癌症幸存者，目前尚无针对CRF的有效管理方法。最近，越来越多关于使用精神药物治疗CRF的试验已经开展，但这些试验结果并不一致。因此，我们进行了一项荟萃分析，旨在评估精神药物治疗CRF的效果和安全性。对10项符合条件的关于精神药物哌甲酯和莫达非尼治疗CRF的试验（共1582名参与者）进行了统计分析。对其中7项研究的荟萃分析表明，哌甲酯治疗CRF优于安慰剂。对另外3项评估莫达非尼的研究进行的荟萃分析发现，这种药物并不比安慰剂效果更好。哌甲酯和莫达非尼组与安慰剂组的不良事件相似。我们的荟萃分析表明，用哌甲酯治疗CRF似乎有效，而莫达非尼则无益处。该分析结果有待进一步试验以证实精神药物治疗CRF的有效性和安全性。
Zotero 插件