Nobuaki Hoshino1, Riki Ganeko2, Koya Hida2, Yoshiharu Sakai2. 1. Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin-Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. hoshinob@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin-Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is common and presents with persistent and challenging symptoms for which there is no effective means of prevention. This systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of Goshajinkigan in the prevention of CIPN. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ICHUSHI. Randomised controlled trials comparing Goshajinkigan with an alternative strategy for preventing CIPN were selected. RESULTS: Of five studies included in the review, Goshajinkigan did not reduce the risk of CIPN when the common terminology criteria for adverse events was used [risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.57 for grade ≥2 CIPN and RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.59-2.00 for grade ≥3 CIPN]. When the neurotoxicity criteria of Debiopharm was used, Goshajinkigan tended to decrease the risk of CIPN, but not significantly (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33-1.64 for grade ≥2 CIPN and RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.28-1.52 for grade ≥3 CIPN). CONCLUSIONS: Goshajinkigan tended to prevent persistence but not severity of CIPN. Higher quality trials using multiple measures are needed in the future to clarify the preventive effect of Goshajinkigan and to assess the various aspects of CIPN.
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is common and presents with persistent and challenging symptoms for which there is no effective means of prevention. This systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of Goshajinkigan in the prevention of CIPN. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ICHUSHI. Randomised controlled trials comparing Goshajinkigan with an alternative strategy for preventing CIPN were selected. RESULTS: Of five studies included in the review, Goshajinkigan did not reduce the risk of CIPN when the common terminology criteria for adverse events was used [risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.57 for grade ≥2 CIPN and RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.59-2.00 for grade ≥3 CIPN]. When the neurotoxicity criteria of Debiopharm was used, Goshajinkigan tended to decrease the risk of CIPN, but not significantly (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33-1.64 for grade ≥2 CIPN and RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.28-1.52 for grade ≥3 CIPN). CONCLUSIONS: Goshajinkigan tended to prevent persistence but not severity of CIPN. Higher quality trials using multiple measures are needed in the future to clarify the preventive effect of Goshajinkigan and to assess the various aspects of CIPN.
Authors: Floortje Mols; Tonneke Beijers; Gerard Vreugdenhil; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kathleen A Griffith; Ingemar S J Merkies; Elizabeth E Hill; David R Cornblath Journal: J Peripher Nerv Syst Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Larissa Shamseer; David Moher; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-02
Authors: Yihong Liu; Brian H May; Anthony Lin Zhang; Xinfeng Guo; Chuanjian Lu; Charlie Changli Xue; Haibo Zhang Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 3.279