Suppr超能文献

去氨加压素治疗儿童夜间遗尿症。

Desmopressin for nocturnal enuresis in children.

作者信息

Glazener C M, Evans J H

机构信息

Health Services Research Unit (Foresterhill Lea), University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, AB25 2ZD.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002(3):CD002112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002112.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of desmopressin on nocturnal enuresis in children, and to compare desmopressin with other interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register. Date of the most recent search: March 2002. The reference list of a previous version of this review was also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials of desmopressin for nocturnal enuresis in children were included in the review. Comparison interventions included placebo, other drugs, alarms or behavioural methods. Trials focused solely on daytime wetting were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the eligible trials, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty one randomised trials involving 2760 children (of whom 1813 received desmopressin) met the inclusion criteria. The quality of many of the trials was poor. Desmopressin was compared with another drug in four trials, and with alarms in seven. 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 compared with placebo (e.g. 20 microg: 1.34 fewer wet nights per week, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.57). Children on desmopressin were more likely to become dry (e.g. RR for failure to achieve 14 dry nights with 20 mcg 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91). However, there was no difference after treatment was finished. There was no clear dose-related effect of desmopressin, but the evidence was limited. Data which compared oral and nasal administration were too few to be conclusive. While desmopressin was better than diclofenac or indomethacin, and comparison with tricyclic drugs (amitriptyline and imipramine) suggested that they might be as effective as desmopressin, the data were inconclusive due to small numbers. There were more side effects with the tricyclics. In one small trial, desmopressin resulted in more wet nights than alarms towards the end of treatment (WMD 1.4, 95% CI: 0.14 to 2.66) and the chance of failure or relapse after alarms was less (RR 9.17, 95% CI 1.28 to 65.90). Although there were fewer wet nights during alarm treatment supplemented by desmopressin compared with alarms alone (WMD -1.35, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.38), the data are inconclusive about whether this is reflected in lower failure (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.52 to 1.50) or subsequent relapse rates (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.10).

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 may produce more sustained benefits. However, based on the available limited evidence, these conclusions can only be tentative. Children should be advised not to drink more than 240 ml (8 oz) fluid during desmopressin treatment in order to avoid the possible risk of water intoxication.

摘要

背景

遗尿症(尿床)是一种会对社会造成干扰且带来压力的病症,约15% - 20%的五岁儿童以及高达2%的青年成人受其影响。

目的

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。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane尿失禁组试验注册库。最近一次检索日期为2002年3月。同时也检索了本综述上一版本的参考文献列表。

入选标准

所有关于去氨加压素治疗儿童夜间遗尿症的随机试验均纳入本综述。比较性干预措施包括安慰剂、其他药物、警报器或行为方法。仅专注于日间遗尿的试验被排除。

数据收集与分析

两名综述作者独立评估符合条件的试验质量,并提取数据。

主要结果

41项随机试验涉及2,760名儿童(其中1,813名接受去氨加压素治疗)符合纳入标准。许多试验质量较差。在四项试验中去氨加压素与另一种药物进行了比较,在七项试验中与警报器进行了比较。去氨加压素在各种剂量和剂型下均能有效减少尿床。与安慰剂相比,去氨加压素的每一剂量在治疗期间每周至少减少一个尿床夜(例如,20微克:每周尿床夜减少1.34个,95%置信区间1.11至1.57)。接受去氨加压素治疗的儿童更有可能实现干爽(例如,使用20微克未能达到14个干爽夜的风险比为0.84,95%置信区间0.79至0.91)。然而,治疗结束后并无差异。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过少,无法得出结论。虽然去氨加压素优于双氯芬酸或吲哚美辛,与三环类药物(阿米替林和丙咪嗪)比较表明它们可能与去氨加压素效果相当,但由于样本量小,数据尚无定论。三环类药物的副作用更多。在一项小型试验中,治疗接近尾声时,去氨加压素导致的尿床夜比警报器更多(加权均数差1.4,95%置信区间:0.14至2.66),且警报器治疗后失败或复发的可能性更小(风险比9.17,95%置信区间1.28至65.90)。尽管与单独使用警报器相比,去氨加压素辅助警报器治疗期间尿床夜更少(加权均数差 -1.35,95%置信区间 -2.32至 -0.38),但关于这是否反映在更低的失败率(风险比0.88,95%置信区间0.52至1.50)或后续复发率(风险比0.58,95%置信区间0.31至1.10)上,数据尚无定论。

综述作者结论

去氨加压素能迅速减少每周的尿床夜数,但有证据表明治疗停止后这种效果无法持续。与其他替代治疗方法比较表明,去氨加压素和三环类药物具有相似的临床效果,但警报器可能产生更持久的益处。然而,基于现有有限证据,这些结论只能是初步的。应建议儿童在接受去氨加压素治疗期间饮水量不超过240毫升(8盎司),以避免水中毒的可能风险。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验