Lubiprostone和渗透性泻药治疗慢性特发性便秘的疗效和安全性比较:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Luoyao Yang, Ye Zong, Fandong Meng, Yongdong Wu, Shutian Zhang
{"title":"Lubiprostone和渗透性泻药治疗慢性特发性便秘的疗效和安全性比较:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Luoyao Yang, Ye Zong, Fandong Meng, Yongdong Wu, Shutian Zhang","doi":"10.1111/jgh.16844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone (Lub) with osmotic laxatives in the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in May 2024. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were manually searched by two independent reviewers. The efficacy was assessed by the proportion of patients with spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) within 24 h after the first administration of the medication and SBMs in Weeks 1 and 4. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events including nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal distension. Optimal probability values and the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) were also calculated for all interventions. Higher SUCRA values indicate better efficacy and safety of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following a thorough search and screening process, 25 articles were included. Among the selected trials, 8 compared Lub to placebo, 10 compared polyethylene glycol (PEG) to placebo, 4 compared lactulose (Lac) to placebo, and 3 compared PEG to Lac. The meta-analysis results indicated that Lub and osmotic laxatives were significantly more effective than placebo. According to the SUCRA results, the highest rank probabilities were for Lub in increasing the SBMs and reducing abdominal distension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lubiprostone is more effective than PEG and Lactulose for treating CIC, with comparable safety profiles. However, this conclusion requires further validation through large-scale, high-quality studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":15877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Lubiprostone and Osmotic Laxatives in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Luoyao Yang, Ye Zong, Fandong Meng, Yongdong Wu, Shutian Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgh.16844\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone (Lub) with osmotic laxatives in the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in May 2024. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were manually searched by two independent reviewers. The efficacy was assessed by the proportion of patients with spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) within 24 h after the first administration of the medication and SBMs in Weeks 1 and 4. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events including nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal distension. Optimal probability values and the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) were also calculated for all interventions. Higher SUCRA values indicate better efficacy and safety of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following a thorough search and screening process, 25 articles were included. Among the selected trials, 8 compared Lub to placebo, 10 compared polyethylene glycol (PEG) to placebo, 4 compared lactulose (Lac) to placebo, and 3 compared PEG to Lac. The meta-analysis results indicated that Lub and osmotic laxatives were significantly more effective than placebo. According to the SUCRA results, the highest rank probabilities were for Lub in increasing the SBMs and reducing abdominal distension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lubiprostone is more effective than PEG and Lactulose for treating CIC, with comparable safety profiles. However, this conclusion requires further validation through large-scale, high-quality studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16844\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16844","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是比较卢比前列素(lubiprostone, Lub)与渗透性泻药治疗慢性特发性便秘(CIC)的疗效和安全性。方法:于2024年5月通过PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane Library进行综合文献检索。符合纳入标准的研究由两名独立的审稿人手动搜索。通过首次给药后24小时内自发排便(SBMs)的患者比例和第1周和第4周的SBMs来评估疗效。安全性评估基于不良事件,包括恶心、腹泻和腹胀。并计算了所有干预措施的最优概率值和累积排序区域下的曲面(SUCRA)。SUCRA值越高,表明干预的有效性和安全性越好。结果:经过彻底的检索和筛选过程,纳入了25篇文章。在选定的试验中,8项比较了Lub与安慰剂,10项比较了聚乙二醇(PEG)与安慰剂,4项比较了乳果糖(Lac)与安慰剂,3项比较了PEG与Lac。meta分析结果显示Lub和渗透性泻药明显比安慰剂更有效。根据SUCRA结果,Lub在增加SBMs和减少腹胀方面的排名概率最高。结论:Lubiprostone治疗CIC比PEG和乳果糖更有效,且安全性相当。然而,这一结论需要通过大规模、高质量的研究进一步验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Lubiprostone and Osmotic Laxatives in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone (Lub) with osmotic laxatives in the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in May 2024. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were manually searched by two independent reviewers. The efficacy was assessed by the proportion of patients with spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) within 24 h after the first administration of the medication and SBMs in Weeks 1 and 4. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events including nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal distension. Optimal probability values and the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) were also calculated for all interventions. Higher SUCRA values indicate better efficacy and safety of the intervention.

Results: Following a thorough search and screening process, 25 articles were included. Among the selected trials, 8 compared Lub to placebo, 10 compared polyethylene glycol (PEG) to placebo, 4 compared lactulose (Lac) to placebo, and 3 compared PEG to Lac. The meta-analysis results indicated that Lub and osmotic laxatives were significantly more effective than placebo. According to the SUCRA results, the highest rank probabilities were for Lub in increasing the SBMs and reducing abdominal distension.

Conclusion: Lubiprostone is more effective than PEG and Lactulose for treating CIC, with comparable safety profiles. However, this conclusion requires further validation through large-scale, high-quality studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
326
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is produced 12 times per year and publishes peer-reviewed original papers, reviews and editorials concerned with clinical practice and research in the fields of hepatology, gastroenterology and endoscopy. Papers cover the medical, radiological, pathological, biochemical, physiological and historical aspects of the subject areas. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信