Veldhuyzen van Zanten S J, Jones M J, Verlinden M, Talley N J
Division of Gastroenterology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Mar;96(3):689-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03521.x.
The efficacy of prokinetic agents in functional (nonulcer) dyspepsia has been questioned based on recent trial results. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of cisapride and domperidone in functional dyspepsia.
Computer and manual searching was used to identify placebo-controlled studies that included >20 patients. The statistical analysis focused on: global assessment by the investigator, epigastric pain, early satiety, abdominal distension and nausea (all rated on four-point scales). Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) in favor of treatment. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate possible effect modifiers. The relationship between improvement in gastric emptying and symptoms was also evaluated.
For cisapride, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, but varying numbers of studies had to be used for the different outcome measures. For all outcome measures, there was a statiscally significant benefit in favor of cisapride: global assessment of improvement by the investigator or patient (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.8), epigastric pain (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.7), early satiety (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.9-0.4), abdominal distension (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.1-0.7), and nausea (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.1-0.5). Age of patient, year of publication, and country where study was performed had only small modifying effects. There were insufficient data to determine whether there is a relationship between improvement in gastric emptying and response to treatment. For domperidone, four of eight studies could be used for the analysis of global assessment of improvement by the investigator. This showed an OR of 7.0 (95% CI 3.6-16) in favor of domperidone.
Both cisapride and domperidone seem to be efficacious in functional dyspepsia, although this conclusion is largely based on global assessment by the investigator, which may not be an optimal outcome measure.
基于近期试验结果,促动力药物在功能性(非溃疡性)消化不良中的疗效受到质疑。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以确定西沙必利和多潘立酮在功能性消化不良中的疗效。
采用计算机检索和手工检索,以识别纳入超过20例患者的安慰剂对照研究。统计分析重点关注:研究者的整体评估、上腹部疼痛、早饱、腹胀和恶心(均采用四点量表评分)。结果以支持治疗的优势比(OR)报告。进行回归分析以评估可能的效应修饰因素。还评估了胃排空改善与症状之间的关系。
对于西沙必利,17项研究符合纳入标准,但不同的结局指标使用的研究数量不同。对于所有结局指标,西沙必利均具有统计学意义上的显著优势:研究者或患者对改善情况的整体评估(OR 2.9,95%CI 1.5 - 5.8)、上腹部疼痛(OR 0.19,95%CI 0.05 - 0.7)、早饱(OR 0.18,95%CI 0.9 - 0.4)、腹胀(OR 0.32,95%CI 0.1 - 0.7)和恶心(OR 0.26,95%CI 0.1 - 0.5)。患者年龄、发表年份和研究开展的国家仅有较小的修饰作用。没有足够的数据来确定胃排空改善与治疗反应之间是否存在关系。对于多潘立酮,八项研究中的四项可用于分析研究者对改善情况进行的整体评估。这显示支持多潘立酮的OR为7.0(95%CI 3.6 - 16)。
西沙必利和多潘立酮在功能性消化不良中似乎均有效,尽管这一结论很大程度上基于研究者的整体评估,而这可能不是最佳的结局指标。