Lau James, Lind Tore, Persson Tore, Eklund Stefan
Department of Surgery, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
AstraZeneca Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden.
J Dig Dis. 2017 Feb;18(2):99-106. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.12447.
The rate of rebleeding from peptic ulcers could differ between Asian and Western populations. This study aimed to determine whether the observed twofold difference in rebleeding rates in two similarly designed clinical trials (one in Hong Kong [n = 240], the other in a predominantly Western population [n = 764, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251979]) can be explained by differences in baseline patient characteristics.
Two-factor and multifactor analyses (adjusted by demographics, established risk factors for peptic ulcer and peptic ulcer bleeding, and disease severity variables) were performed using pooled data from the two studies. Cox regression analysis was used to predict the rebleeding risk at 3 days.
In the two-factor analysis (placebo vs esomeprazole/omeprazole and Western study vs Hong Kong study), data trended towards a reduced risk of rebleeding in the Western study (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.07, P = 0.094). The risk of rebleeding was similar in both studies after adjusted for multiple factors (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.60-1.99, P = 0.767). The strongest predictor of rebleeding (apart from study drug) was a classification of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade IV (HR 4.15, 95% CI 1.49-11.56, P = 0.006). When such patients were excluded, the difference in rebleeding rates between the studies reduced.
The difference in rebleeding rates between the two studies is explained by the factors in our analysis, most importantly a classification of ASA grade IV, suggesting that other differences, including ethnicity, did not influence the rebleeding rate.
消化性溃疡再出血率在亚洲人群和西方人群中可能存在差异。本研究旨在确定在两项设计相似的临床试验(一项在香港进行[n = 240],另一项在以西方人群为主的地区进行[n = 764,ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT00251979])中观察到的再出血率两倍差异是否可由基线患者特征差异来解释。
使用两项研究的汇总数据进行双因素和多因素分析(根据人口统计学、消化性溃疡和消化性溃疡出血的既定危险因素以及疾病严重程度变量进行调整)。采用Cox回归分析预测3天时的再出血风险。
在双因素分析(安慰剂对比埃索美拉唑/奥美拉唑以及西方研究对比香港研究)中,数据显示西方研究的再出血风险有降低趋势(风险比[HR] 0.69,95%置信区间[CI] 0.44 - 1.07,P = 0.094)。在对多个因素进行调整后,两项研究中的再出血风险相似(HR 1.10,95% CI 0.60 - 1.99,P = 0.767)。除研究药物外,再出血的最强预测因素是美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)IV级分类(HR 4.15,95% CI 1.49 - 11.56,P = 0.006)。排除这类患者后,两项研究之间的再出血率差异减小。
两项研究之间的再出血率差异可由我们分析中的因素来解释,最重要的是ASA IV级分类,这表明包括种族在内的其他差异并未影响再出血率。