Olin J, Schneider L, Novit A, Luczak S
Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1975 Zonal Avenue, KAM-400, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2000(2):CD000359. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000359.
Currently hydergine is used almost exclusively for treating patients with either dementia, or 'age-related' cognitive symptoms. Since the early eighties there have been over a dozen more clinical trials, yet hydergine's efficacy remains uncertain. Although previous reviews offer generally favorable support for hydergine's efficacy, they were, however, limited by a bias with respect to the particular clinical studies chosen (eg, the inclusion of case reports, and uncontrolled trials), and by authors' impressionistic assessments of results. Not surprisingly, there has been a lack of consensus among reviewers with regard to the efficacy of hydergine. In 1994, a meta-analysis was published by the present reviewers who reported that overall, hydergine was more effective than placebo. However they also observed that the statistical evidence for efficacy in 'possible or probable Alzheimer's disease' patients was so modest that one additional statistically non-significant trial would have reduced the results to non significance.
Because of uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of hydergine, the goals of this overview were to assess its overall effect in patients with possible dementia, and to investigate potential moderators of an effect.
The Cochrane Dementia Group Register of Clinical Trials was searched using the terms 'hydergine', 'ergoloids,' 'ergoloid mesylates,' 'dihydroergocristine,' 'dihydroergocryptine,' 'dihydroergotoxine,' and 'dihydroergocornine. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two proprietary databases were searched also. Published reviews were inspected for further sources.
Trials to be included must be randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, and unconfounded comparisons of hydergine with placebo for a treatment duration of greater than 1 week in subjects with dementia or symptoms consistent with dementia.
Data were extracted independently by the reviewers, pooled where appropriate and possible, and the pooled odds ratios (95%CI) or the average differences (95%CI) were estimated. Where possible, intention-to-treat data were used. Outcomes of interest included clinical global impressions of change and comprehensive rating scales. Potential moderating variables of a treatment effect included: inpatient/outpatient status, trial duration, age, sex, medication dose, publication year, and diagnostic grouping.
There were a total of nineteen trials that met inclusion criteria and that had data sufficient for analysis. Thirteen trials reported sufficient information to use a global rating of improvement and nine trials provided information on a comprehensive rating scale. Three trials provided both outcome measures. It was not possible to use many of the published results in a combined analysis owing to the lack of sufficient data to perform statistical analyses. For the twelve trials that used global ratings, there was a significant effect favoring hydergine (OR 3.78, 95%CI, 2.72-5.27). For the nine trials that used comprehensive ratings, there was a significant mean difference favoring hydergine (WMD 0.96, 95%CI, 0. 54-1.37). Hydergine was well tolerated in these trials, with 78% of randomized subjects available for data analyses. Greater effect sizes on global ratings were associated with younger age, and possibly higher dose, although most of the subgroup analyses were statistically insignificant.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: As in an earlier systematic review, we found hydergine to show significant treatment effects when assessed by either global ratings or comprehensive rating scales (based here on a smaller set of trials than in the earlier published systematic review because trials were required to have data that could conform with MetaView, the Cochrane Collaboration statistics software). The small number of trials available for analysis, however, limited the ability of subgroup analyses to identify statistically significant modera
目前,氢化麦角碱几乎仅用于治疗痴呆患者或有“与年龄相关”认知症状的患者。自80年代初以来,已经进行了十多项临床试验,但氢化麦角碱的疗效仍不确定。尽管先前的综述总体上对氢化麦角碱的疗效给予了支持,但这些综述受到所选特定临床研究的偏差(例如纳入病例报告和非对照试验)以及作者对结果的主观评估的限制。毫不奇怪,综述者们对于氢化麦角碱的疗效缺乏共识。1994年,本综述作者发表了一项荟萃分析,报告总体而言,氢化麦角碱比安慰剂更有效。然而,他们也观察到,在“可能或很可能患有阿尔茨海默病”患者中,疗效的统计证据非常有限,以至于再多一项无统计学意义的试验就会使结果变为无显著性差异。
由于氢化麦角碱疗效存在不确定性,本综述的目的是评估其对可能患有痴呆的患者的总体效果,并研究潜在的效应调节因素。
使用“氢化麦角碱”、“麦角生物碱”、“甲磺酸麦角生物碱”、“双氢麦角隐亭”、“双氢麦角克碱”、“双氢麦角毒碱”和“双氢麦角柯宁碱”等检索词检索Cochrane痴呆症临床试验组注册库。还检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE和两个专有数据库。检查已发表的综述以获取更多来源。
纳入的试验必须是随机、双盲、平行组试验,并且是氢化麦角碱与安慰剂在痴呆患者或有痴呆相关症状的受试者中进行的无混淆比较,治疗持续时间大于1周。
综述者独立提取数据,在适当且可行的情况下进行合并,并估计合并比值比(95%可信区间)或平均差异(95%可信区间)。尽可能使用意向性分析数据。感兴趣的结局包括临床总体变化印象和综合评定量表。治疗效果的潜在调节变量包括:住院/门诊状态、试验持续时间、年龄、性别、药物剂量、发表年份和诊断分组。
共有19项试验符合纳入标准且有足够的数据进行分析。13项试验报告了足够的信息以使用总体改善评分,9项试验提供了综合评定量表的信息。3项试验提供了这两种结局指标。由于缺乏足够的数据进行统计分析,无法在合并分析中使用许多已发表的结果。对于使用总体评分的12项试验,有显著效果支持氢化麦角碱(比值比3.78,95%可信区间,2.72 - 5.27)。对于使用综合评分的9项试验,有显著的平均差异支持氢化麦角碱(加权均数差0.96,95%可信区间,0.54 - 1.37)。在这些试验中,氢化麦角碱耐受性良好,78%的随机分组受试者可用于数据分析。总体评分上更大的效应量与更年轻的年龄相关,可能也与更高的剂量相关,尽管大多数亚组分析无统计学意义。
与早期的系统评价一样,我们发现当通过总体评分或综合评定量表评估时,氢化麦角碱显示出显著的治疗效果(基于此处比早期发表的系统评价中更少的试验集,因为要求试验具有可与Cochrane协作统计软件MetaView相符的数据)。然而,可用于分析的试验数量有限,限制了亚组分析识别统计学显著调节因素的能力。