Brañas P, Jordan R, Fry-Smith A, Burls A, Hyde C
West Midlands Development and Evaluation Service, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(27):1-61.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important problem both for people with the disease and for society. There is no cure, and alleviation of symptoms forms the cornerstone of care. Excessive fatigue that severely limits activity is experienced by at least two-thirds of the estimated 60,000 people with MS in the UK.
(1) To identify current treatments for fatigue in MS and their evidence-base. (2) To systematically review the evidence for those treatments that have been investigated in more than one rigorous study, in order to determine their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
The review was carried out in two stages: a formal scoping review (to assess the range of interventions used by people with MS), and a systematic review for treatments that had been identified as promising and that had been investigated in clinical trials (as identified in the scoping review). A systematic review of research on costs and cost-effectiveness of those interventions identified as promising was also performed. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched for the period 1991-June 1999 (scoping review) and 1966-December 1999 (systematic review). Reference lists from publications were also searched, and experts were contacted for any additional information not already identified.
Interventions identified for the treatment of fatigue in MS (1) Behavioural advice. This is the main element of initial clinical management and no rigorous research of its effectiveness was identified. (2) Drugs (amantadine, pemoline, potassium-channel blockers and antidepressants). (3) Training, rehabilitation and devices (cooling vests and electromagnetic fields). (4) Alternative therapies (bee venom, cannabis, acupuncture/acupressure and yoga). Only two drugs, amantadine and pemoline, met the criteria for full systematic review. RESULTS - EFFECTIVENESS OF AMANTADINE: One parallel and three crossover trials were found, involving a total of 236 people with MS. All studies were open to bias. All studies showed a pattern in favour of amantadine compared with placebo, but there is considerable uncertainty about the validity and clinical significance of this finding. This pattern of benefit was considerably undermined when different assumptions were used in the sensitivity analysis. RESULTS - EFFECTIVENESS OF PEMOLINE: One parallel and one crossover trial were found involving a total of 126 people with MS. Both studies were open to bias. There was no overall tendency in favour of pemoline over placebo and an excess of reports of adverse effects with pemoline. RESULTS - HEALTH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: The drug costs of amantadine and pemoline are modest (pound 200 and pound 80 per annum, respectively). No economic evaluations were identified in the systematic review, and available data were insufficient to allow modelling of cost-effectiveness in this rapid review.
There is insufficient evidence to allow people with MS, clinicians or policy makers to make informed decisions on the appropriate use of the many treatments on offer. Only amantadine appears to have some proven ability to alleviate the fatigue in MS, though only a proportion of users will obtain benefit and then only some of these patients will benefit sufficiently to take the drug in the long term. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: The frequency, severity and impact of fatigue, the poverty of available research, and the absence of any ongoing research, suggest that new research is an urgent priority. People with MS, clinicians and policy makers should work together to ensure that the evidence required is collected as quickly as possible by encouraging involvement in rigorous research. Research should not be restricted to the two drugs reviewed in depth in this report. All interventions identified in the scoping review (see above) should be considered, as should basic scientific research into the underlying mechanism of fatigue in MS.
多发性硬化症(MS)对患者本人及社会而言都是一个重要问题。该病无法治愈,缓解症状是护理的基石。在英国,估计6万名MS患者中至少三分之二经历过严重限制活动的过度疲劳。
(1)确定MS疲劳的当前治疗方法及其证据基础。(2)系统评价那些在一项以上严格研究中得到调查的治疗方法的证据,以确定其有效性和成本效益。
该评价分两个阶段进行:正式的范围界定评价(以评估MS患者使用的干预措施范围),以及对在范围界定评价中被确定为有前景且已在临床试验中得到调查的治疗方法进行系统评价。还对那些被确定为有前景的干预措施的成本及成本效益研究进行了系统评价。检索了1991年至1999年6月(范围界定评价)以及1966年至1999年12月(系统评价)期间的电子数据库,包括MEDLINE和EMBASE。还检索了出版物的参考文献列表,并就尚未确定的任何其他信息联系了专家。
确定的MS疲劳治疗干预措施:(1)行为建议。这是初始临床管理的主要内容,未发现对其有效性的严格研究。(2)药物(金刚烷胺、匹莫林、钾通道阻滞剂和抗抑郁药)。(3)训练、康复及设备(冷却背心和电磁场)。(4)替代疗法(蜂毒、大麻、针灸/指压和瑜伽)。只有两种药物,金刚烷胺和匹莫林,符合全面系统评价的标准。结果 - 金刚烷胺的有效性:发现一项平行试验和三项交叉试验,共涉及236例MS患者。所有研究都存在偏倚可能性。所有研究均显示与安慰剂相比,金刚烷胺有一定优势,但这一发现的有效性和临床意义存在很大不确定性。当在敏感性分析中采用不同假设时,这种获益模式受到很大影响。结果 - 匹莫林的有效性:发现一项平行试验和一项交叉试验,共涉及126例MS患者。两项研究都存在偏倚可能性。与安慰剂相比,匹莫林总体上并无优势,且匹莫林不良反应报告较多。结果 - 卫生经济分析:金刚烷胺和匹莫林的药物成本适中(分别为每年200英镑和80英镑)。在系统评价中未发现经济评估,现有数据不足以在本次快速评价中对成本效益进行建模。
证据不足,无法让MS患者、临床医生或政策制定者就是否适当使用众多现有治疗方法做出明智决策。只有金刚烷胺似乎有一定证据表明能够缓解MS疲劳,尽管只有一部分使用者会从中获益,而且这些患者中只有一部分会长期充分受益。结论 - 对研究的建议:疲劳的频率、严重程度和影响、现有研究的匮乏以及尚无任何正在进行的研究,表明开展新研究是当务之急。MS患者、临床医生和政策制定者应共同努力,通过鼓励参与严格研究,确保尽快收集所需证据。研究不应局限于本报告深入评价的两种药物。范围界定评价中确定的所有干预措施(见上文)均应予以考虑,对MS疲劳潜在机制的基础科学研究也应如此。