泮托拉唑钠肠溶片与莫沙必利治疗功能性消化不良的临床效果及安全性

Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review

Background

Dyspepsia represents a symptom domain rather than a diagnostic condition and covers a wide range of complex, underlying pathophysiologies that are not well understood. The review explores comparative effectiveness interventions for the treatment of symptomatic dyspepsia along a pragmatic-explanatory continuum. The aim is to identify relevant design characteristics applicable to future upper gastrointestinal comparative effectiveness research employing integrative medicine.

Methods

Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and WHO Clinical Trials were systematically searched until January 2019. Included articles were original research with two or more comparative intervention arms for the primary outcome; relief of symptomatic dyspepsia. Evaluation of the studies was conducted using the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS-2) tool.

Results

Thirty-six articles were included in the review. A total of 68 Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs), utilizing 50 different formats were deployed across the studies. The appraisal process revealed eligibility, flexibility in adherence, flexibility in delivery and organization domains further aligned towards an explanatory design.

Conclusion

This review identified three design characteristics relevant for future comparative effectiveness research for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal disorders in a community setting. Extensive exclusion eligibility criteria limited the generalization of comparative effectiveness study results by removing sub-groups of the target populations more at risk of dyspeptic symptoms. The requirement for entry endoscopy was found to be common and not always pragmatically justifiable. Development of validated PROMs appropriate for a generic application to upper gastrointestinal disorders would be advantageous for future comparative effectiveness research within integrative medicine.

Proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to May 2017), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to May 2017), Embase (OvidSP; to May 2017), and SIGLE grey literature (up to May 2017) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to May 2017. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD of at least two weeks' duration. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 25 RCTs from 27 papers (with 8453 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. PPI was more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 6172; studies = 18; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may have little or no effect compared with H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2; low quality evidence), and may be slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; participants = 1033; studies = 5; NNTB 16; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics have probably little or no effect compared with PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).There was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments. There were fewer adverse events in the combination of PPI plus prokinetics compared to prokinetics alone (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than prokinetics for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.

Proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to January 2016), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to February 2016), Embase (OvidSP; to February 2016), and SIGLE grey literature (up to February 2016) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to February 2016. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 23 RCTs from 22 papers (with 8759 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. Two to eight weeks of therapy with PPI was slightly more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 5968; studies = 16; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may be slightly more effective than H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2, NNTB 13; low quality evidence), and slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; participants = 892; studies = 4; NNTB 20; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics were possibly slightly more effective than PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; NNTB 18; moderate quality evidence).The was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than H2RAs for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.

Combined use of proton pump inhibitors and prokinetics: Feasibility and cautions

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a group of preferred medicines for treating acid related diseases. Prokinetic drugs are widely used in gastroesophageal reflux disease and diseases caused by gastrointestinal motility. The combined use of PPIs and prokinetic drugs has been considered irrational when some authors discuss the clinical rational use of PPIs and prokinetic drugs, and they recommended that PPI and prokinetic drugs should not be taken at the same time, but should be separated by 1-2 h. This is somewhat misleading for clinicians to prescribe medicines and pharmacists to evaluate the rational use of the drugs. In this paper, we discuss the feasibility and cautions of combined use of PPIs and prokinetic drugs, to provide a reference for clinicians and pharmacists.