Chapman N D, Grillage M G, Mazumder R, Atkinson S N
Northbrook Road Health Centre, Shirley.
Br J Clin Pract. 1990 Nov;44(11):461-6.
OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and acceptability of mebeverine and high-fibre dietary advice versus mebeverine and ispaghula in fixed combination in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome in adults. DESIGN Open, prospectively randomised, parallel group comparison of mebeverine/dietary advice and mebeverine/ispaghula during an eight-week study period. SETTING General practices in the UK. PATIENTS One hundred and eleven patients with irritable bowel syndrome diagnosed by symptom profile or negative investigations between the ages of 18 and 75 years were entered. All patients had a history of abdominal pain occurring at least once a week for a period of three months or more. INTERVENTION Dosage was 135 mg of mebeverine hydrochloride, three times daily before meals, together with advice on high-fibre dietary intake, or 135 mg of mebeverine hydrochloride plus 3.5 g of ispaghula husk twice or three times daily before meals. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS Details of abdominal pain severity and frequency, bowel frequency and stool consistency were recorded by means of clinicians' assessments and patient diaries. Pre-treatment assessments revealed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to any of the parameters. Both treatment groups demonstrated highly significant improvements in the numbers of pain attacks and their severity; no statistically significant differences between the two groups were demonstrated. Five patients in the mebeverine/dietary advice group reported five concurrent effects and nine patients in the mebeverine/ispaghula group reported 13 concurrent effects. All of the mebeverine/dietary advice group found their treatment acceptable but up to 28% of the mebeverine/ispaghula group found their treatment unpalatable. CONCLUSION Both treatments are effective in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome in adults. The fixed combination of mebeverine/ispaghula, however, was found to be unpalatable by up to 28% of the patients in that group. There does not, therefore, appear to be any advantage in using fixed combination therapy in this condition.
目的 比较美贝维林与高纤维饮食建议联用和美贝维林与车前草籽胶固定复方联用在治疗成人肠易激综合征中的疗效和可接受性。设计 在为期8周的研究期间,对美贝维林/饮食建议和美贝维林/车前草籽胶进行开放、前瞻性随机平行组比较。地点 英国的全科医疗诊所。患者 111例年龄在18至75岁之间、根据症状特征或阴性检查诊断为肠易激综合征的患者入组。所有患者均有腹痛病史,每周至少发作一次,持续3个月或更长时间。干预措施 剂量为135毫克盐酸美贝维林,每日3次,饭前服用,同时给予高纤维饮食摄入建议;或135毫克盐酸美贝维林加3.5克车前草籽壳,每日2次或3次,饭前服用。测量和结果 通过临床医生评估和患者日记记录腹痛严重程度和频率、排便频率和大便稠度的详细情况。治疗前评估显示,两组在任何参数方面均无显著差异。两个治疗组在疼痛发作次数及其严重程度方面均有高度显著改善;两组之间未显示出统计学上的显著差异。美贝维林/饮食建议组有5例患者报告了5种并发效应,美贝维林/车前草籽胶组有9例患者报告了13种并发效应。美贝维林/饮食建议组的所有患者都认为他们的治疗是可接受的,但美贝维林/车前草籽胶组高达28%的患者认为他们的治疗难吃。结论 两种治疗方法对成人肠易激综合征均有效。然而,美贝维林/车前草籽胶固定复方组高达28%的患者认为难吃。因此,在这种情况下使用固定复方疗法似乎没有任何优势。