Glazener C M, Evans J H
Health Services Research Unit (Flea), University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Lea, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, UK, AB25 2ZD.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2002(2):CD002112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002112.
Enuresis (bedwetting) is a socially disruptive and stressful condition which affects around 15-20% of five year olds, and up to 2% of young adults. Although there is a high rate of spontaneous remission, the social, emotional and psychological costs to the children can be great.
To assess the effects of desmopressin on nocturnal enuresis in children, and to compare desmopressin with other interventions.
The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE to June 1997; AMED; ASSIA; BIDS; BIOSIS Previews (1985-1996); CINAHL; DHSS Data; EMBASE (1974 to June 1997); PsycLIT and SIGLE. Organisations, manufacturers, researchers and health professionals concerned with enuresis were contacted for information. The reference sections of obtained studies were also checked for further trials. Date of the most recent search: July 1997.
All randomised trials of desmopressin for nocturnal enuresis in children were included in the review. Trials were eligible for inclusion if: children were randomised to receive desmopressin compared with placebo, other drugs or other conservative interventions for nocturnal bedwetting; participants with organic causes for their bedwetting were excluded; and baseline assessments of the level of bedwetting were reported. Trials focused solely on daytime wetting were excluded.
Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the eligible trials, and extracted data.
Twenty one randomised trials involving 948 children treated with desmopressin, met the inclusion criteria. The quality of many of the trials was poor. Desmopressin was compared with a tricyclic drug in two trials, and with alarms in one. Desmopressin was effective in reducing bedwetting in a variety of doses and forms. Each dose of desmopressin reduced bedwetting by at least one night per week during treatment (eg 20microg: 1.56 fewer wet nights per week, 95% CI -1.94 to -1.19). Participants on desmopressin were 4.6 times more likely to achieve 14 consecutive dry nights (95% CI 1.38 to 15.02) compared with placebo. However, there was no difference after treatment was finished. There was no apparent dose-related effect of desmopressin, but the evidence was limited. Data which compared oral and nasal administration were too few to be conclusive. Desmopressin and imipramine (a tricyclic drug) were equally effective in one small trial. Amitriptyline (another tricyclic) was not consistently better than desmopressin either alone or when used as a supplement. In a single trial, desmopressin was initially superior to using an alarm in reducing the number of wet nights per week: WMD -1.7 (95% CI: -2.96 to -0.45), but this result was not sustained; after three months of treatment, patients using the alarm had 1.4 fewer wet nights per week than with desmopressin: (95% CI: 0.14 to 2.65). Participants receiving the alarm intervention were also nine times less likely to relapse than those given desmopressin: RR 9.2 (95% CI: 1.28 to 65.9). Combining alarm and drug therapy was found to be superior to alarm treatment alone. The addition of desmopressin to an alarm schedule resulted in one less wet night per week: (95% CI: -1.55 to -0.45).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Desmopressin rapidly reduced the number of wet nights per week, but there was some evidence that this was not sustained after treatment stopped. Comparison with alternative treatments suggested that desmopressin and tricyclics had similar clinical effects, but that alarms produced more sustained benefits. However, based on the available evidence, these conclusions can only be tentative. There was some evidence of minor side effects of desmopressin in the included trials, such as nasal irritation and nose bleeds. However, the risk of water intoxication associated with over-drinking before bedtime has been reported. Patients and their families need to be warned of potential adverse effects and advise
遗尿症(尿床)是一种对社会有干扰且令人焦虑的病症,约15% - 20%的五岁儿童以及高达2%的青年成年人受其影响。尽管自然缓解率较高,但对儿童造成的社会、情感和心理代价可能很大。
评估去氨加压素对儿童夜间遗尿症的疗效,并将去氨加压素与其他干预措施进行比较。
检索了以下电子数据库:截至1997年6月的MEDLINE;AMED;ASSIA;BIDS;BIOSIS Previews(1985 - 1996);CINAHL;卫生与社会保障部数据;EMBASE(1974年至1997年6月);PsycLIT和SIGLE。还联系了与遗尿症相关的组织、制造商、研究人员和卫生专业人员以获取信息。对所获研究的参考文献部分也进行了检查以寻找更多试验。最近一次检索日期:1997年7月。
本综述纳入了所有关于去氨加压素治疗儿童夜间遗尿症的随机试验。若试验符合以下条件则 eligible for inclusion:将儿童随机分组,使其接受去氨加压素治疗,并与安慰剂、其他药物或其他针对夜间尿床的保守干预措施进行比较;排除有尿床器质性病因的参与者;报告尿床水平的基线评估。仅关注白天尿床的试验被排除。
两名综述作者独立评估符合条件的试验质量,并提取数据。
21项涉及948名接受去氨加压素治疗儿童的随机试验符合纳入标准。许多试验质量较差。在两项试验中,将去氨加压素与一种三环类药物进行了比较,在一项试验中与报警器进行了比较。去氨加压素以各种剂量和剂型均能有效减少尿床次数。在治疗期间,每剂去氨加压素每周至少减少一个尿床夜(例如20微克:每周减少1.56个尿床夜,95%可信区间 - 1.94至 - 1.19)。与安慰剂相比,接受去氨加压素治疗的参与者连续14个干爽夜晚的可能性高出4.6倍(95%可信区间1.38至15.02)。然而,治疗结束后无差异。去氨加压素没有明显的剂量相关效应,但证据有限。比较口服和鼻内给药的数据太少,无法得出结论。在一项小型试验中,去氨加压素和丙咪嗪(一种三环类药物)同样有效。阿米替林(另一种三环类药物)单独使用或作为补充剂使用时,并不始终比去氨加压素效果更好。在一项单一试验中,最初去氨加压素在减少每周尿床夜次数方面优于使用报警器:加权均数差 - 1.7(95%可信区间: - 2.96至 - 0.45),但这一结果未持续;治疗三个月后,使用报警器的患者每周尿床夜比使用去氨加压素的患者少1.4个:(95%可信区间:0.14至2.65)。接受报警器干预的参与者复发的可能性也比接受去氨加压素治疗的参与者低9倍:相对危险度9.2(95%可信区间:1.28至65.9)。发现将报警器和药物治疗相结合优于单独的报警器治疗。在报警器方案中添加去氨加压素每周可减少一个尿床夜:(95%可信区间: - 1.55至 - 0.45)。
去氨加压素能迅速减少每周尿床夜次数,但有证据表明治疗停止后这种效果未持续。与其他替代治疗方法比较表明,去氨加压素和三环类药物有相似的临床效果,但报警器产生的益处更持久。然而,基于现有证据,这些结论只能是初步的。在所纳入的试验中,有证据表明去氨加压素有一些轻微副作用,如鼻刺激和鼻出血。然而,有报告称存在睡前过度饮水导致水中毒的风险。需要向患者及其家属警告潜在的不良反应并给予建议