• The Korean Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology
• /
• v.21 no.6
• /
• pp.657-666
• /
• 2017

Paclitaxel, a chemotherapeutic drug, induces severe peripheral neuropathy. Gabapentin (GBT) is a first line agent used to treat neuropathic pain, and its effect is mediated by spinal noradrenergic and muscarinic cholinergic receptors. Electro-acupuncture (EA) is used for treating various types of pain via its action through spinal opioidergic and noradrenergic receptors. Here, we investigated whether combined treatment of these two agents could exert a synergistic effect on paclitaxel-induced cold and mechanical allodynia, which were assessed by the acetone drop test and von Frey filament assay, respectively. Significant signs of allodynia were observed after four paclitaxel injections (a cumulative dose of 8 mg/kg, i.p.). GBT (3, 30, and 100 mg/kg, i.p.) or EA (ST36, Zusanli) alone produced dose-dependent anti-allodynic effects. The medium and highest doses of GBT (30 and 100 mg/kg) provided a strong analgesic effect, but they induced motor dysfunction in Rota-rod tests. On the contrary, the lowest dose of GBT (3 mg/kg) did not induce motor weakness, but it provided a brief analgesic effect. The combination of the lowest dose of GBT and EA resulted in a greater and longer effect, without inducing motor dysfunction. This effect on mechanical allodynia was blocked by spinal opioidergic (naloxone, $20{\mu}g$), or noradrenergic (idazoxan, $10{\mu}g$) receptor antagonist, whereas on cold allodynia, only opioidergic receptor antagonist blocked the effect. In conclusion, the combination of the lowest dose of GBT and EA has a robust and enduring analgesic action against paclitaxel-induced neuropathic pain, and it should be considered as an alternative treatment method.

• Journal of Korean Traditional Oncology
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.33-44
• /
• 2023

목적: 항암유발말초신경병증은 암 환자가 겪는 흔한 항암 부작용이나 현재까지 효과적으로 알려진 치료법은 없다. 본 연구의 목적은 항암유발말초신경병증에 대한 침 치료와 가바펜틴의 병용 요법의 효과와 안전성을 평가하는 것이다. 방법: 항암유발말초신경병증을 겪고 있는 24명의 암 환자를 침 치료 단독군 (AG, acupuncture group)과 침과 가바펜틴의 병용요법군 (CG, combined acupuncture and gabapentin group)으로 무작위 배정하였다. 두 그룹 모두 침 치료는 주 3회, 4주간 수행하였다. 병용 요법군은 침 치료와 더불어 1일 900mg의 가바펜틴을 복용하도록 하였다. 치료 효과는 Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), visual analogue scale (VAS), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 items (EORTC-CIPN20)를 이용하여 측정하였다. 치료로 인한 부작용은 대상자가 방문할 때마다 조사하였다. 결과: 총 23명의 대상자(AG, n=12; CG, n=11)의 평가지표를 분석한 결과, 치료 4 주 후 침 치료 단독군은 NPSI 점수가 44.33±25.04에서 30.58±21.55으로 감소하였고, 병용 요법군은 30.55±25.59에서 18.64±19.42로 감소하였으며, 두 군 모두 통계적으로 유의미하게 감소하였다(p<0.001). VAS점수는 침 치료 단독군에서는 4.79±2.17 에서 3.42±2.49으로 감소하였고, 병용 요법군에서는 3.55±2.07에서 2.73±2.49 로 감소하였다(p<0.05). 치료 효과는 치료 완료 2주후까지 지속되었으며, 두 군간의 유의미한 차이는 없었다. EORTC-CIPN20은 침 치료 단독군은 30.27±18.87에서 20.84±16.35으로 감소하여(p<0.01), 두 군 모두에서 삶의 질이 향상되었다. 결론: 본 연구로 침 치료와 가바펜틴의 병용 요법이 항암유발말초신경병증 환자의 증상 및 삶의 질 개선에 효과적이며 안전한 치료법임을 확인하였다. 그러나 침 치료와 가바펜틴의 시너지 효과에 대해서는 확인 할 수 없었으며, 이를 확인하기 위해 추가적인 연구가 필요할 것으로 사료된다.

• Journal of Acupuncture Research
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.42-49
• /
• 2003

Purpose : In order to study the effectiveness of East-West pain treatment on central poststroke pain(CPSP), we evaluated its effect on alleviation of pain and rehabilitation of CPSP patients who were treated with eletroacupuncture and west pain treatment for four weeks. Methods : Twenty four patients diagnosed by their pain characteristics of central pain form stroke were treated with sympathetic nerve block, gabapentin, amitriptyline, and electroacupuncture for four weeks. Pain intensity through the visual analogue scale(VAS), and improvements of mobility and rehabilitation through the modified Barthel index(MBI) and Rankin scale(RS), respectively, before and after pain treatment were also assessed. Results : VAS pain scores were significantly improved from $7.7{\pm}1.7$ to $4.4{\pm}2.0$ with pain treatment(p<0.05). In accordance with improvement of ain scores, RS and MBI scores ere also improved from $2.88{\pm}0.95$ to $2.13{\pm}1.01$ and from $83.0{\pm}16.9$ to $94.7{\pm}9.5$(p<0.05), respectively, with pain treatment(p<0.05). Conclusions : It was suggested that the active pain treatment was contributed to the rehabilitation of CPSP patients, resulting in improvement of quality of life of CPSP patients. Futhermore, East pain treatment in combination with West pain treatment may be useful modality to alleviate CPSP.