Lubiprostone在肠道准备方案中的性能、疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Yizhong Wu, Joseph Gung, Kyle S Liu, Alexander D Grieme, Manuel Garza, Daryl Ramai, Aline Ghaleb, Andrew Han
{"title":"Lubiprostone在肠道准备方案中的性能、疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yizhong Wu, Joseph Gung, Kyle S Liu, Alexander D Grieme, Manuel Garza, Daryl Ramai, Aline Ghaleb, Andrew Han","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bowel preparation is an essential part of the colonoscopy process, with inadequate or poor bowel preparation associated with decreased polyp detection. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of adjunct lubiprostone bowel prep on colonoscopies performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from inception until February 2025 for RCTs comparing lubiprostone adjunct therapy, bowel prep and control. Our data was analyzed for polyp detection rates, bowel prep quality, colonoscopy duration, adverse events, and side effects. A random effects model was used, and the data were presented using pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight RCT manuscripts were included with 1322 patients (657 in the lubiprostone group and 665 in the control group). There was no significant difference in polyp detection rate between groups (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.92-1.76, P=0.15, I2: 0%). The lubiprostone group had significantly higher odds of excellent bowel prep compared with control (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.52-3.33, P<0.0001, I2: 41%) and significantly lower odds of poor bowel prep (P=0.009). Colonoscopy duration in minutes was similar (P=0.17). Adverse event odds were similar between groups (P=0.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lubiprostone as an adjunct agent for bowel prep improves the odds of excellent quality prep while mitigating the odds of poor prep. Lubiprostone adjunct bowel prep is similar to control in adverse effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance, Efficacy, and Safety of Lubiprostone in Bowel Preparation Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Yizhong Wu, Joseph Gung, Kyle S Liu, Alexander D Grieme, Manuel Garza, Daryl Ramai, Aline Ghaleb, Andrew Han\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bowel preparation is an essential part of the colonoscopy process, with inadequate or poor bowel preparation associated with decreased polyp detection. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of adjunct lubiprostone bowel prep on colonoscopies performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from inception until February 2025 for RCTs comparing lubiprostone adjunct therapy, bowel prep and control. Our data was analyzed for polyp detection rates, bowel prep quality, colonoscopy duration, adverse events, and side effects. A random effects model was used, and the data were presented using pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight RCT manuscripts were included with 1322 patients (657 in the lubiprostone group and 665 in the control group). There was no significant difference in polyp detection rate between groups (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.92-1.76, P=0.15, I2: 0%). The lubiprostone group had significantly higher odds of excellent bowel prep compared with control (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.52-3.33, P<0.0001, I2: 41%) and significantly lower odds of poor bowel prep (P=0.009). Colonoscopy duration in minutes was similar (P=0.17). Adverse event odds were similar between groups (P=0.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lubiprostone as an adjunct agent for bowel prep improves the odds of excellent quality prep while mitigating the odds of poor prep. Lubiprostone adjunct bowel prep is similar to control in adverse effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002215\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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 clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002215","RegionNum":4,"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

肠道准备是结肠镜检查过程的重要组成部分,肠道准备不足或不良与息肉检出率降低有关。我们进行了一项系统回顾和荟萃分析,以调查辅助润滑剂前列石肠道准备对结肠镜检查表现的影响。方法:我们在PubMed, Embase, Cochrane和Web of Science中进行了全面的检索,从成立到2025年2月,比较卢比前列素辅助治疗,肠道准备和对照的随机对照试验。我们的数据分析了息肉检出率、肠准备质量、结肠镜检查时间、不良事件和副作用。采用随机效应模型,采用95% CI的合并优势比(OR)和平均差异(MD)来呈现数据。结果:8篇RCT文献共纳入1322例患者(润滑前列素组657例,对照组665例)。两组间息肉检出率差异无统计学意义(OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.92 ~ 1.76, P=0.15, I2: 0%)。与对照组相比,lubiprostone组获得优质肠道准备的几率明显更高(OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.52-3.33)。结论:lubiprostone作为肠道准备的辅助药物,提高了获得优质肠道准备的几率,同时降低了不良肠道准备的几率。lubiprostone辅助肠道准备的副作用与对照组相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance, Efficacy, and Safety of Lubiprostone in Bowel Preparation Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Introduction: Bowel preparation is an essential part of the colonoscopy process, with inadequate or poor bowel preparation associated with decreased polyp detection. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of adjunct lubiprostone bowel prep on colonoscopies performance.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from inception until February 2025 for RCTs comparing lubiprostone adjunct therapy, bowel prep and control. Our data was analyzed for polyp detection rates, bowel prep quality, colonoscopy duration, adverse events, and side effects. A random effects model was used, and the data were presented using pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI.

Results: Eight RCT manuscripts were included with 1322 patients (657 in the lubiprostone group and 665 in the control group). There was no significant difference in polyp detection rate between groups (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.92-1.76, P=0.15, I2: 0%). The lubiprostone group had significantly higher odds of excellent bowel prep compared with control (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.52-3.33, P<0.0001, I2: 41%) and significantly lower odds of poor bowel prep (P=0.009). Colonoscopy duration in minutes was similar (P=0.17). Adverse event odds were similar between groups (P=0.22).

Conclusion: Lubiprostone as an adjunct agent for bowel prep improves the odds of excellent quality prep while mitigating the odds of poor prep. Lubiprostone adjunct bowel prep is similar to control in adverse effects.

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 clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信