Suppr超能文献

去氨加压素用于治疗儿童夜间遗尿症。

Desmopressin for nocturnal enuresis in children.

作者信息

Hahn Deirdre, Stewart Fiona, Raman Gayathri

机构信息

Department of Nephrology, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.

Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jul 29;7(7):CD002112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002112.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Enuresis (bedwetting) affects up to 20% of five-year-old children and 2% of adults. Although spontaneous remission often occurs, the social, emotional and psychological costs can be great. Desmopressin has been used to treat bedwetting since the 1970s. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and last updated in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of desmopressin on treating nocturnal enuresis in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched January 2023) and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials of desmopressin or desmopressin combined with another intervention for treating nocturnal enuresis in children between five and 16 years old.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the eligible trials. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 new studies for this review, which now includes 95 studies (8473) participants, of whom 5434 received desmopressin. In this review we continued the assessment of the effect of combination therapy involving desmopressin. The majority of the trials were in children between the ages of five to 16 years in an outpatient setting. The quality of the evidence was assessed as low or very low. The first comparison was desmopressin versus placebo. Desmopressin may reduce the mean number of wet nights per week compared with placebo (MD -1.81, 95% CI -2.24 to -1.39; participants = 1267; studies = 16; low-certainty evidence). Desmopressin probably leads to more children achieving 14 consecutive dry nights by the end of treatment compared with placebo (RR 3.18, 95% CI 1.75 to 5.80; participants = 922: studies = 11; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in children experiencing adverse effects with desmopressin compared to placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.52; participants = 269; studies = 3; low-certainty evidence). Desmopressin was compared with alarm therapy. It is uncertain if there is any difference between desmopressin compared with alarm training in reducing the number of wet nights per week (MD 0.63, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.75; participants = 285; studies = 4; I = 82%; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between desmopressin and alarm therapy in the number of children achieving 14 consecutive dry nights (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; participants = 1530; studies = 15; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in children experiencing side effects with desmopressin therapy compared with alarm therapy (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 6.78; participants = 461, studies = 4; low-certainty evidence). We compared desmopressin with other medications, including tricyclics and anticholinergics. It is uncertain if there is any difference between desmopressin compared to tricyclics in reducing the mean number of wet nights per week (MD 0.23, 95% CI - 0.88 to 1.33; participants = 331; studies = 4; I = 79%; very low-certainty evidence) or in the number of children achieving 14 consecutive dry nights at the end of treatment (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.38; participants = 371; studies = 7; I = 71%; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether children experience more side effects with desmopressin compared with tricyclics (RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.06 to 1.39; participants = 351; studies = 4, very low-certainty evidence). This review included studies with combination therapies. It is uncertain if desmopressin combined with alarm therapy reduces the mean number of wet nights at the end of treatment compared with alarm monotherapy (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.25; participants = 528; studies = 6; I = 84%; very low-certainty evidence); or if it increases the number of children achieving 14 consecutive dry nights (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.63; participants = 822; studies = 10; very low-certainty evidence). Desmopressin plus alarm therapy may make little to no difference in children experiencing side effects compared with alarm therapy alone (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.07 to 16.56; participants = 207; studies = 1; low-certainty evidence). Combining desmopressin with alarm therapy probably reduces the number of wet nights at the end of treatment (MD -0.88; 95%CI -1.38 to -0.38; participants = 156; studies = 2; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase the number of children achieving 14 consecutive dry nights at the end of treatment compared with desmopressin monotherapy (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.51; participants = 370; studies = 5; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if combined desmopressin and anticholinergic therapy versus desmopressin monotherapy reduces the mean number of wet nights at the end of therapy (MD -0.50; 95% CI -1.05 to 0.06; participants = 188; studies = 3; I = 66%; very low-certainty evidence); or if it may increase the number of children achieving 14 consecutive dry nights at the end of treatment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.11; participants = 611; studies = 8; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in adverse events between desmopressin plus anticholinergics and desmopressin monotherapy (RR 1.51 95% CI 0.73 to 3.09, participants = 187; studies =2; low-certainty evidence). Minor adverse effects were common for desmopressin, including dizziness, headache, mood changes, gastrointestinal discomfort, nasal discomfort, hyponatraemia and one report of a convulsion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Desmopressin compared with placebo may increase the number of dry nights per week at the end of treatment in children. Desmopressin therapy may be as effective as alarm therapy at the end of treatment. However, the quality of evidence was assessed as low or very low. Alarm therapy compared to desmopressin may improve the number of children who are dry at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence).

摘要

背景

遗尿症(尿床)影响着高达20%的五岁儿童和2%的成年人。尽管常常会自然缓解,但社会、情感和心理成本可能很高。自20世纪70年代以来,去氨加压素一直被用于治疗尿床。这是对一篇Cochrane系统评价的更新,该评价首次发表于2000年,上次更新于2006年。

目的

评估去氨加压素治疗儿童夜间遗尿症的效果。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane尿失禁专科注册库,其中包含从Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、MEDLINE在研、MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print、CINAHL、ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台检索到的试验,以及对期刊和会议论文集的手工检索(检索时间为2023年1月)和相关文章的参考文献列表。

入选标准

我们纳入了去氨加压素或去氨加压素与另一种干预措施联合治疗5至16岁儿童夜间遗尿症的随机或半随机试验。

数据收集与分析

三位综述作者独立提取数据,并评估符合条件试验中的偏倚风险。我们采用了Cochrane预期的标准方法程序。

主要结果

我们为本综述确定了50项新研究,目前该综述包括95项研究(8473名参与者),其中5434人接受了去氨加压素治疗。在本综述中,我们继续评估了涉及去氨加压素的联合治疗的效果。大多数试验是在门诊环境中针对5至16岁的儿童进行的。证据质量被评估为低或极低。第一个比较是去氨加压素与安慰剂。与安慰剂相比,去氨加压素可能会减少每周尿床的平均次数(MD -1.81,95%CI -2.24至-1.39;参与者 = 1267;研究 = 16;低确定性证据)。与安慰剂相比,去氨加压素可能会使更多儿童在治疗结束时连续14个晚上不尿床(RR 3.18,95%CI 1.75至5.80;参与者 = 922;研究 = 11;中度确定性证据)。与安慰剂相比,接受去氨加压素治疗的儿童出现不良反应的情况可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.11,95%CI 0.81至1.52;参与者 = 269;研究 = 3;低确定性证据)。将去氨加压素与警报疗法进行了比较。去氨加压素与警报训练在减少每周尿床次数方面是否存在差异尚不确定(MD 0.63,95%CI -0.49至1.75;参与者 = 285;研究 = 4;I = 82%;极低确定性证据)。在连续14个晚上不尿床的儿童数量方面,去氨加压素与警报疗法之间可能几乎没有差异(RR 0.98,95%CI 0.88至1.09;参与者 = 1530;研究 = 15;低确定性证据)。与警报疗法相比,接受去氨加压素治疗的儿童出现副作用的情况可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.50,95%CI 0.33至6.78;参与者 = 461,研究 = 4;低确定性证据)。我们将去氨加压素与其他药物进行了比较,包括三环类药物和抗胆碱能药物。去氨加压素与三环类药物在减少每周尿床的平均次数方面是否存在差异尚不确定(MD 0.23,95%CI -0.88至1.33;参与者 = 331;研究 = 4;I = 79%;极低确定性证据),或者在治疗结束时连续14个晚上不尿床的儿童数量方面是否存在差异也尚不确定(RR 0.94,95%CI 0.63至1.38;参与者 = 371;研究 = 7;I = 71%;极低确定性证据)。与三环类药物相比,去氨加压素治疗的儿童是否会出现更多副作用尚不确定(RR 0.29,95%CI 0.06至1.39;参与者 = 351;研究 = 4,极低确定性证据)。本综述纳入了联合治疗的研究。与警报单一疗法相比,去氨加压素联合警报疗法在治疗结束时是否会减少尿床的平均次数尚不确定(MD -0.80,95%CI -1.34至-0.25;参与者 = 528;研究 = 6;I = 84%;极低确定性证据);或者是否会增加连续14个晚上不尿床的儿童数量也尚不确定(RR 1.25,95%CI 0.96至1.63;参与者 = 822;研究 = 10;极低确定性证据)。与单独的警报疗法相比,去氨加压素加警报疗法在儿童出现副作用方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.05,95%CI 0.07至16.56;参与者 = 207;研究 = 1;低确定性证据)。去氨加压素与警报疗法联合使用可能会在治疗结束时减少尿床次数(MD -0.88;95%CI -1.38至-0.38;参与者 = 156;研究 = 2;中度确定性证据),并且与去氨加压素单一疗法相比,可能会增加治疗结束时连续14个晚上不尿床的儿童数量(RR 1.26,95%CI 1.06至1.51;参与者 = 370;研究 = 5;低确定性证据)。与去氨加压素单一疗法相比,去氨加压素与抗胆碱能药物联合治疗在治疗结束时是否会减少尿床的平均次数尚不确定(MD -0.50;95%CI -1.05至0.06;参与者 = 188;研究 = 3;I = 66%;极低确定性证据);或者是否会增加治疗结束时连续14个晚上不尿床的儿童数量也尚不确定(RR 1.53,95%CI 1.10至2.11;参与者 = 611;研究 = 8;低确定性证据)。去氨加压素加抗胆碱能药物与去氨加压素单一疗法在不良事件方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.51,95%CI 0.73至3.09,参与者 = 187;研究 = 2;低确定性证据)。去氨加压素常见的轻微不良反应包括头晕、头痛、情绪变化、胃肠道不适、鼻腔不适、低钠血症以及一例惊厥报告。

作者结论

与安慰剂相比,去氨加压素可能会增加儿童治疗结束时每周不尿床的天数。在治疗结束时,去氨加压素疗法可能与警报疗法一样有效。然而,证据质量被评估为低或极低。与去氨加压素相比,警报疗法可能会提高随访时不尿床的儿童数量(中度确定性证据)。

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