Suppr超能文献

西沙必利治疗儿童胃食管反流

Cisapride treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children.

作者信息

Augood C, MacLennan S, Gilbert R, Logan S

机构信息

Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, UK, WC1N 1EH.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(4):CD002300. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002300.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is an extremely common and usually self-limiting condition in infants. When treatment is required, Cisapride, a pro-kinetic agent, has been commonly prescribed for the symptomatic management of GOR. There have been recent reports of possibly serious adverse events, e.g. an increased QTc interval, cardiac arrhythmias, and death, associated with the use of Cisapride.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Cisapride for symptoms of GOR compared with placebo or any other non-surgical treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches were conducted of the Cochrane Central Trials Register and the specialised Trials register of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group, MEDLINE and Embase up till April 2002. Reference lists of relevant review articles and identified trials were scrutinised and forward citation searches were performed in the Science Citation Index on all trials identified. The search was re-run in August 2003 and no new trials were found.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared oral Cisapride therapy with placebo or with other non-surgical treatments for children with a diagnosis of GOR were included. Only studies in which Cisapride was administered orally for a minimum of one week and which documented at least one of the primary outcomes were included. We excluded trials in which the majority of participants were aged less than 28 days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were defined as a change in symptoms at the end of treatment, presence of adverse events, occurrence of clinical complications, and weight gain. The secondary outcomes included physiological measures of GOR or histological evidence of oesophagitis. We dichotomised symptoms into 'same or worse' vs 'improved' and calculated summary odds ratios. Continuous measures of GOR (e.g. reflux index) were summarised as a weighted mean difference. All outcomes were analysed using a random effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified nine trials which met the inclusion criteria. Eight trials compared Cisapride with placebo, of which seven (236 participants) reported data on symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux, and one reported data on the QTc interval (49 patients). The odds ratio for 'same or worse' vs 'improved symptoms' at the end of treatment of 0.34 (95%CI 0.10, 1.19) did not show a statistically significant difference between the two interventions. There was significant heterogeneity between the studies and the funnel plot suggested publication bias. In a sensitivity analysis, the definition of outcomes was changed to 'any symptoms' vs 'no symptoms'. This resulted in the exclusion of three trials (one of them the largest, best quality trial). The resulting pooled odds ratio showed a significant effect of Cisapride (OR 0.19, 95%CI 0.08, 0.44). Five studies reported adverse events. Four reported adverse events (mainly diarrhoea) but the difference was not statistically significant (OR 1.80, 95%CI 0.87, 3.70). One trial found no difference in the QTc after 3 to 8 weeks of treatment. Cisapride was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the reflux index (weighted mean difference -6.49, 95%CI -10.13, -2.85), but as reflux index and clinical symptoms are poorly correlated, the clinical importance of this finding is uncertain. Other measures of oesophageal pH monitoring did not reach significance. One included study compared Cisapride with Gaviscon (or Gaviscon and Carobel). The odds ratio for 'same or worse' vs 'improvement' in the Cisapride group compared with Gaviscon was 3.26 (95%CI 0.93-11.38).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear evidence that Cisapride reduces symptoms of GOR. The results suggested substantial publication bias favouring studies showing a positive effect of Cisapride. This finding is supported by the report of one unpublished multi-centre study of 134 patients, which was reported to show no evidence of a significant effect of Cisapride. Due to reports of fatal cardiac arrhythmias or sudden death, from July Due to reports of fatal cardiac arrhythmias or sudden death, from July 2000, cisapride was restricted to a limited access programme supervised by a paediatric gastrologist in the USA and in Europe, to patients treated within a clinical trial or safety study or registry programme.

摘要

背景

胃食管反流(GOR)在婴儿中极为常见,通常为自限性疾病。如需治疗,促动力药西沙必利常用于GOR的症状管理。近期有报道称,使用西沙必利可能会出现严重不良事件,如QTc间期延长、心律失常和死亡。

目的

确定与安慰剂或其他非手术治疗相比,西沙必利对GOR症状的疗效。

检索策略

检索了Cochrane中央试验注册库、Cochrane上消化道和胰腺疾病小组的专门试验注册库、MEDLINE和Embase,检索截至2002年4月。对相关综述文章和已识别试验的参考文献列表进行了审查,并在《科学引文索引》中对所有已识别试验进行了正向引文检索。2003年8月重新进行了检索,未发现新的试验。

入选标准

纳入比较口服西沙必利治疗与安慰剂或其他非手术治疗对诊断为GOR儿童疗效的随机对照试验。仅纳入西沙必利口服至少一周且记录了至少一项主要结局的研究。排除大多数参与者年龄小于28天的试验。

数据收集与分析

主要结局定义为治疗结束时症状的变化、不良事件的发生、临床并发症的发生和体重增加。次要结局包括GOR的生理指标或食管炎的组织学证据。我们将症状分为“相同或更差”与“改善”,并计算汇总比值比。GOR的连续测量指标(如反流指数)汇总为加权平均差。所有结局均采用随机效应方法进行分析。

主要结果

检索确定了9项符合纳入标准的试验。8项试验比较了西沙必利与安慰剂,其中7项(236名参与者)报告了胃食管反流症状的数据,1项报告了QTc间期的数据(49名患者)。治疗结束时“相同或更差”与“症状改善”的比值比为0.34(95%CI 0.10,1.19),两种干预措施之间未显示出统计学上的显著差异。研究之间存在显著异质性,漏斗图提示存在发表偏倚。在敏感性分析中,将结局定义改为“有任何症状”与“无症状”。这导致排除了3项试验(其中一项是规模最大、质量最好的试验)。由此得出汇总比值比显示西沙必利有显著效果(OR 0.19,95%CI 0.08,0.44)。5项研究报告了不良事件。4项报告了不良事件(主要是腹泻),但差异无统计学意义(OR 1.80,95%CI 0.87,3.70)。一项试验发现治疗3至8周后QTc无差异。西沙必利与反流指数的显著降低相关(加权平均差-6.49,95%CI -10.13,-2.85),但由于反流指数与临床症状相关性较差,这一发现的临床重要性尚不确定。其他食管pH监测指标未达到显著水平。一项纳入研究比较了西沙必利与加胃斯康(或加胃斯康和角豆胶)。西沙必利组与加胃斯康组相比,“相同或更差”与“改善”的比值比为3.26(95%CI 0.93 - 11.38)。

综述作者结论

我们没有发现明确证据表明西沙必利能减轻GOR症状。结果提示存在明显的发表偏倚,倾向于显示西沙必利有积极作用的研究。一项未发表的对134名患者的多中心研究报告支持了这一发现,该报告显示没有证据表明西沙必利有显著效果。由于有致命心律失常或猝死的报告,自2000年7月起,在美国和欧洲,西沙必利被限制在由儿科胃肠病学家监督的有限获取项目中,仅用于临床试验、安全性研究或注册项目中的患者。

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