Batista Claudio S, Atallah Alvaro N, Saconato Humberto, da Silva Edina Mk
Departament of Medicine, Urgency Medicine, Universidade Federal de São Paulo / Escola Paulista de Medicina, Rua Pedro de Toledo 598, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;2010(4):CD006562. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006562.pub2.
Genital warts are common and usually are harmless but can be painful and psychologically burdensome. Several local treatments can be used, including topical 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU).
To determine the effectiveness and safety of 5-FU topical treatment for genital warts in nonimmunocompromised individuals.
Databases searched were Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009 Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2009), EMBASE (until August 2009), LILACS (1982 to August 2009). The search had no language or publication restrictions.
The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) among women, men, or both sexes, aged 18 years and older, comparing: 5-FU versus placebo or no treatment; 5-FU in any dose versus other isolated treatment, topical or systemic; 5-FU in any dose associated with other treatment versus placebo; 5-FU in any dose associated with other treatment versus other isolated treatment, topical or systemic; 5-FU in any dose associated with other treatment versus other associated treatment, topical or systemic.
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from the original publications.
Six trials involving 988 patients (645 women and 343 men) and reporting eight comparisons were found. Two studies reported withdrawals and dropouts, but none mentioned analysis by intention to treat (ITT). 5-FU presented better results for cure than placebo or no treatment (relative risk (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.67), meta-cresol-sulfonic acid (MCSA) (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.37), Podophylin 2%, 4% or 25% (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.82). There were no statistical differences for treatment failure for 5-FU versus CO2 Laser (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.11) versus 5-FU + INFalpha-2a (low dose) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.119). Worse results were found for 5-FU versus 5-FU + INFalpha-2a (high dose) (RR 10.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 77.36), and 5-FU + CO2 Laser INFalpha-2a (high dose) (RR 7.97, 95% CI 2.87 to 22.13).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed trials were highly variable in methods and quality, and the evidence provided by these studies was weak. Cure rates with several treatments were variable, and although 5-FU presents therapeutic results that are inferior to those seen with 5-FU + Inf alpha-2a (high dose) and 5-FU + CO2 Laser + Inf alpha-2a (high dose), the treatment should not be abandoned. Topical treatment with 5-FU has a therapeutic effect; however, the benefits and risks have not been determined clearly and further studies are needed.
尖锐湿疣很常见,通常无害,但可能会疼痛且带来心理负担。可采用多种局部治疗方法,包括外用5-氟尿嘧啶(5-FU)。
确定5-FU局部治疗对非免疫功能低下个体尖锐湿疣的有效性和安全性。
检索的数据库有Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(《Cochrane图书馆》2009年第3期)、MEDLINE(1966年至2009年8月)、EMBASE(截至2009年8月)、LILACS(1982年至2009年8月)。检索无语言或出版限制。
该综述纳入了年龄在18岁及以上的女性、男性或男女混合的随机对照试验(RCT),比较:5-FU与安慰剂或不治疗;任何剂量的5-FU与其他单一治疗(局部或全身);任何剂量的5-FU联合其他治疗与安慰剂;任何剂量的5-FU联合其他治疗与其他单一治疗(局部或全身);任何剂量的5-FU联合其他治疗与其他联合治疗(局部或全身)。
两位作者独立评估试验质量并从原始出版物中提取数据。
共找到6项涉及988例患者(645名女性和343名男性)并报告了8项比较的试验。两项研究报告了退出和失访情况,但均未提及意向性分析(ITT)。与安慰剂或不治疗相比,5-FU在治愈率方面表现更好(相对风险(RR)0.39,95%置信区间(CI)0.23至0.67),与间甲酚磺酸(MCSA)相比(RR 2.11,95% CI 0.83至5.37),与2%、4%或25%鬼臼毒素相比(RR 1.26,95% CI 0.86至1.82)。5-FU与二氧化碳激光相比(RR 0.69,95% CI 0.43至1.11)以及与5-FU + α-2a干扰素(低剂量)相比(RR 1.02,95% CI 0.87至1.119),在治疗失败方面无统计学差异。与5-FU + α-2a干扰素(高剂量)相比(RR 10.78,95% CI 1.50至77.36)以及与5-FU + 二氧化碳激光 + α-2a干扰素(高剂量)相比(RR 7.97,95% CI 2.87至22.13),5-FU的结果较差。
所综述的试验在方法和质量上差异很大,这些研究提供的证据薄弱。几种治疗方法的治愈率各不相同,虽然5-FU的治疗效果不如5-FU + α-2a干扰素(高剂量)和5-FU + 二氧化碳激光 + α-2a干扰素(高剂量),但该治疗方法不应被摒弃。外用5-FU有治疗作用;然而,其益处和风险尚未明确确定,需要进一步研究。