Clinical Trial Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(66):1-161. doi: 10.3310/BFCR7986.
Irritable bowel syndrome, characterised by abdominal pain and a change in stool form or frequency, is most often managed in primary care. When first-line therapies are ineffective, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggest considering low-dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown and they are infrequently prescribed by general practitioners.
To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of low-dose titrated amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care.
A pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A nested, qualitative study explored participant and general practitioner experiences of treatments and trial participation, and implications for wider use of amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care. Participants, clinicians, investigators and analysts were masked to allocation.
Fifty-five general practices in three regions in England (Wessex, West of England, West Yorkshire).
Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome with ongoing symptoms after trying first-line treatments and no contraindications to TCAs.
Amitriptyline 10 mg once-daily, self-titrated by participants to a maximum of 30 mg once-daily or matched placebo for 6 months. Participants randomised 1 : 1 with most having the option to continue blinded treatment for a further 6 months.
The primary participant-reported outcome was the effect of amitriptyline on global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at 6 months, measured using the irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System, with a 35-point between-group difference defined as the minimum clinically important difference. The key secondary outcome was the proportion of participants reporting subjective global assessment of relief at 6 months, defined as somewhat, considerable, or complete relief of symptoms. Other secondary outcomes included: effect on global symptoms, via the irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System, and subjective global assessment of relief of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at 3 and 12 months; effect on somatic symptom-reporting at 6 months; anxiety an-d depression scores; ability to work and participate in other activities at 3, 6 and 12 months; acceptability, tolerability and adherence to trial medication.
Four hundred and sixty-three participants were randomised to amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System score between arms at 6 months [-27.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -46.9 to -7.10; = 0.008]. For the key secondary outcome of subjective global assessment of relief of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms, amitriptyline was superior to placebo at 6 months (odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.66; = 0.005). Amitriptyline was superior to placebo across a range of other irritable bowel syndrome symptom measures but had no impact on somatoform symptom-reporting, anxiety, depression, or work and social adjustment scores. Adverse event trial withdrawals were more common with amitriptyline (12.9% vs. 8.7% for placebo) but most adverse events were mild. The qualitative study thematically analysed 77 semistructured interviews with 42 participants and 16 GPs. Most participants found the self-titration process acceptable and empowering.
General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with irritable bowel syndrome whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies. Guidance and resources should support GP-patient communication to distinguish amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome from use as an antidepressant and to support patients managing their own dose titration.
This trial is registered as ISRCTN48075063.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/162/01) and is published in full in Vol. 28, No. 66. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
肠易激综合征的特征是腹痛和粪便形态或频率改变,通常在初级保健中进行管理。当一线治疗无效时,国家卫生与保健卓越研究所指南建议考虑低剂量三环类抗抑郁药作为二线治疗,但它们在初级保健中的有效性尚不清楚,且一般从业者很少开此类药物。
评估低剂量滴定阿米替林作为初级保健中肠易激综合征二线治疗的临床和成本效益。
一项实用、随机、多中心、双盲、安慰剂对照试验。一项嵌套的定性研究探讨了参与者和全科医生对治疗和试验参与的体验,以及对更广泛使用阿米替林治疗肠易激综合征的影响。参与者、临床医生、研究人员和分析人员对分配情况进行了盲法。
英格兰三个地区(Wessex、英格兰西部、西约克郡)的 55 家全科诊所。
符合罗马 IV 标准的肠易激综合征患者,在尝试一线治疗后仍有症状且无三环类抗抑郁药禁忌证。
阿米替林 10 mg 每日一次,由参与者自行滴定至最大 30 mg 每日一次或匹配安慰剂治疗 6 个月。参与者以 1:1 的比例随机分组,大多数人有选择继续进行盲法治疗 6 个月的机会。
主要的参与者报告的结局是阿米替林对肠易激综合征严重程度评分系统(irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System)评估的全球肠易激综合征症状的影响,35 分的组间差异定义为最小临床重要差异。关键次要结局是报告主观整体缓解的参与者比例,定义为症状明显、相当或完全缓解。其他次要结局包括:3 个月和 12 个月时通过肠易激综合征严重程度评分系统评估的全球症状的影响;6 个月时躯体症状报告的影响;焦虑和抑郁评分;3、6 和 12 个月时的工作和其他活动参与能力;试验药物的可接受性、耐受性和依从性。
463 名参与者被随机分配至阿米替林(232 名)或安慰剂(231 名)组。意向治疗分析显示,6 个月时阿米替林组在肠易激综合征严重程度评分系统评分方面优于安慰剂组[-27.0,95%置信区间(CI)-46.9 至-7.10; = 0.008]。对于主观整体缓解的关键次要结局,阿米替林在 6 个月时优于安慰剂(优势比 1.78,95%CI 1.19 至 2.66; = 0.005)。阿米替林在一系列其他肠易激综合征症状测量方面优于安慰剂,但对躯体症状报告、焦虑、抑郁或工作和社会适应评分没有影响。阿米替林组的不良事件试验退出率较高(12.9%比安慰剂组的 8.7%),但大多数不良事件为轻度。定性研究对 42 名参与者和 16 名全科医生的 77 次半结构化访谈进行了主题分析。大多数参与者认为自我滴定过程是可以接受和有帮助的。
对于一线治疗无效的肠易激综合征患者,全科医生应提供低剂量阿米替林。应提供指导和资源,以支持全科医生与患者的沟通,以区分阿米替林治疗肠易激综合征与作为抗抑郁药的用途,并帮助患者管理自己的剂量滴定。
该试验在 ISRCTN48075063 注册。
该奖项由英国国家卫生与保健卓越研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助(NIHR 奖号:16/162/01),并在第 28 卷第 66 期完整发表。有关该奖项的更多信息,请访问 NIHR 资助和奖项网站。