Journal of pharmacopuncture · 2017
A Case Series of Snake Venom Pharmacopuncture for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Retrospective Observational Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Song Si Yeon, Bae Kyeore, Shin Kwhang Ho, Yoo Hwa-Seung
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This case series aims to report the efficacy and the safety of using snake venom pharmacopuncture (SVP) for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).
METHODS: Three heterogeneous cancer (1 endometrium, 1 cervix, and 1 prostate cancer) patients were referred to the East-West Cancer Center (EWCC), Dunsan Korean Medicine Hospital of Daejeon University, from August 02, 2017, to September 15, 2017, for treatment with SVP, and they were treated with SVP 4 times, 6 times, and 8 times, respectively. During the treatment period, the efficacy of SVP therapy was assessed by using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), and the stability was evaluated by using blood tests. Following each session, all patients were examined closely for any allergenic responses or adverse effects.
RESULTS: All patients showed noticeable improvements of their NRS and CTCAE scores. Except for bleeding and bruising at the SVP injection site, no major side effects were noted. One of the patients reported mild chilling and a sore throat after receiving the second treatment; those symptoms went away after a few hours. No hematologic toxicity, hepatotoxicity, or nephrotoxicity was found on the blood test.
CONCLUSION: The results of this research suggest positive potential benefits of using SVP for treating patients with CIPN. Also, the excellent safety results of SVP seen in this research should lead to larger clinical trials aimed at developing SVP into a potential intervention for managing patients with the symptoms of CIPN.
METHODS: Three heterogeneous cancer (1 endometrium, 1 cervix, and 1 prostate cancer) patients were referred to the East-West Cancer Center (EWCC), Dunsan Korean Medicine Hospital of Daejeon University, from August 02, 2017, to September 15, 2017, for treatment with SVP, and they were treated with SVP 4 times, 6 times, and 8 times, respectively. During the treatment period, the efficacy of SVP therapy was assessed by using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), and the stability was evaluated by using blood tests. Following each session, all patients were examined closely for any allergenic responses or adverse effects.
RESULTS: All patients showed noticeable improvements of their NRS and CTCAE scores. Except for bleeding and bruising at the SVP injection site, no major side effects were noted. One of the patients reported mild chilling and a sore throat after receiving the second treatment; those symptoms went away after a few hours. No hematologic toxicity, hepatotoxicity, or nephrotoxicity was found on the blood test.
CONCLUSION: The results of this research suggest positive potential benefits of using SVP for treating patients with CIPN. Also, the excellent safety results of SVP seen in this research should lead to larger clinical trials aimed at developing SVP into a potential intervention for managing patients with the symptoms of CIPN.