成人急性胰腺炎的药物干预:系统综述

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Ling Ding, Linge Jian, Jiayue Xu, Qiao He, Yuning Wang, Che Sun, Wen Wang, Xin Sun
{"title":"成人急性胰腺炎的药物干预:系统综述","authors":"Ling Ding,&nbsp;Linge Jian,&nbsp;Jiayue Xu,&nbsp;Qiao He,&nbsp;Yuning Wang,&nbsp;Che Sun,&nbsp;Wen Wang,&nbsp;Xin Sun","doi":"10.1111/jebm.70007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To provide a comprehensive assessment of the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for AP.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was an overview of systematic reviews based on randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with placebo or blank control in adults with AP. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to January 13, 2024, with an update on February 4, 2025. The effect value of each medication on each outcome of interest defined as a “combo” was assessed. Findings were categorized as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Fifteen reviews (167 unique trials, 12,930 participants) reported the efficacy of 14 medications on 5 outcomes, yielding 35 distinct combos. Seven combos showed efficacy with low certainty evidence: low molecular weight heparin (risk ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.18–0.51), omega-3 fatty acids (0.30, 0.14–0.65), and antioxidants (0.69, 0.49–0.98) for mortality; low molecular weight heparin (0.38, 0.22–0.65), chengqi-series decoctions (0.48, 0.36–0.63), and ulinastatin (0.43, 0.24–0.78) for multiple organ failure; and neostigmine (mean difference –2.81, 95 % confidence interval –3.75 to –1.87) for length of intensive care unit stay. Half of the remaining combos showed no efficacy, while the other half was inconclusive for very low certainty evidence. Safety data were limited, with one review reporting no significant adverse events for neostigmine.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Some pharmacological interventions exhibited potential efficacy for specific AP outcomes, albeit with low certainty evidence. Further verifying those medications is crucial in advancing the treatment landscape for AP.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacological Interventions for Acute Pancreatitis in Adults: An Overview of Systematic Reviews\",\"authors\":\"Ling Ding,&nbsp;Linge Jian,&nbsp;Jiayue Xu,&nbsp;Qiao He,&nbsp;Yuning Wang,&nbsp;Che Sun,&nbsp;Wen Wang,&nbsp;Xin Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jebm.70007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To provide a comprehensive assessment of the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for AP.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This was an overview of systematic reviews based on randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with placebo or blank control in adults with AP. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to January 13, 2024, with an update on February 4, 2025. The effect value of each medication on each outcome of interest defined as a “combo” was assessed. Findings were categorized as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Fifteen reviews (167 unique trials, 12,930 participants) reported the efficacy of 14 medications on 5 outcomes, yielding 35 distinct combos. Seven combos showed efficacy with low certainty evidence: low molecular weight heparin (risk ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.18–0.51), omega-3 fatty acids (0.30, 0.14–0.65), and antioxidants (0.69, 0.49–0.98) for mortality; low molecular weight heparin (0.38, 0.22–0.65), chengqi-series decoctions (0.48, 0.36–0.63), and ulinastatin (0.43, 0.24–0.78) for multiple organ failure; and neostigmine (mean difference –2.81, 95 % confidence interval –3.75 to –1.87) for length of intensive care unit stay. Half of the remaining combos showed no efficacy, while the other half was inconclusive for very low certainty evidence. Safety data were limited, with one review reporting no significant adverse events for neostigmine.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Some pharmacological interventions exhibited potential efficacy for specific AP outcomes, albeit with low certainty evidence. Further verifying those medications is crucial in advancing the treatment landscape for AP.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.70007\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.70007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:全面评估药物干预治疗AP的有效性和安全性。方法:基于随机对照试验的系统评价综述,比较药物干预与安慰剂或空白对照对成人AP的影响。我们检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane系统评价数据库,检索时间从成立到2024年1月13日。并于2025年2月4日更新。评估每种药物对定义为“组合”的每个感兴趣的结果的影响值。结果分为有效、无效和不确定。15篇综述(167项独特的试验,12930名参与者)报告了14种药物对5种结果的疗效,产生了35种不同的组合。7种组合显示出低确定性证据的有效性:低分子肝素(风险比0.31,95%可信区间0.18-0.51)、omega-3脂肪酸(风险比0.30,95%可信区间0.14-0.65)和抗氧化剂(风险比0.69,0.49-0.98)对死亡率的影响;低分子肝素(0.38,0.22-0.65)、参芪系列煎剂(0.48,0.36-0.63)、乌司他丁(0.43,0.24-0.78)治疗多器官功能衰竭;新斯的明对重症监护病房住院时间的影响(平均差异为-2.81,95%可信区间为-3.75至-1.87)。剩下的组合中有一半没有疗效,而另一半则因为非常低的确定性证据而没有定论。安全性数据有限,一篇综述报告新斯的明无显著不良事件。结论:尽管证据的确定性较低,但一些药物干预措施对特定的AP结果显示出潜在的疗效。进一步验证这些药物对于推进AP的治疗前景至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pharmacological Interventions for Acute Pancreatitis in Adults: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Aim

To provide a comprehensive assessment of the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for AP.

Methods

This was an overview of systematic reviews based on randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with placebo or blank control in adults with AP. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to January 13, 2024, with an update on February 4, 2025. The effect value of each medication on each outcome of interest defined as a “combo” was assessed. Findings were categorized as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive.

Results

Fifteen reviews (167 unique trials, 12,930 participants) reported the efficacy of 14 medications on 5 outcomes, yielding 35 distinct combos. Seven combos showed efficacy with low certainty evidence: low molecular weight heparin (risk ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.18–0.51), omega-3 fatty acids (0.30, 0.14–0.65), and antioxidants (0.69, 0.49–0.98) for mortality; low molecular weight heparin (0.38, 0.22–0.65), chengqi-series decoctions (0.48, 0.36–0.63), and ulinastatin (0.43, 0.24–0.78) for multiple organ failure; and neostigmine (mean difference –2.81, 95 % confidence interval –3.75 to –1.87) for length of intensive care unit stay. Half of the remaining combos showed no efficacy, while the other half was inconclusive for very low certainty evidence. Safety data were limited, with one review reporting no significant adverse events for neostigmine.

Conclusions

Some pharmacological interventions exhibited potential efficacy for specific AP outcomes, albeit with low certainty evidence. Further verifying those medications is crucial in advancing the treatment landscape for AP.

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
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.40%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.
×
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