4.7 Review

Efficacy of 5-HT3 Antagonists and 5-HT4 Agonists in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 104, 期 7, 页码 1831-1843

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.223

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional disorder. 5-Hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) is a key modulator of gastrointestinal sensorimotor function. Many patients have IBS that can be difficult to treat, which has led to the development of newer agents, such as 5-HT3 antagonists and 5-HT4 agonists. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the efficacy of all available 5-HT agents in IBS. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to June 2008). Trials recruiting adults with IBS in primary, secondary, or tertiary care comparing 5-HT3 antagonists or 5-HT4 agonists with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated from the reciprocal of the risk difference. RESULTS: The strategic search identified 1,593 citations. A total of 29 RCTs were eligible for inclusion; placebo was compared with 5-HT 3 antagonists in 11 RCTs, with tegaserod in 11, and with mixed 5-HT3 antagonists/5-HT4 agonists in 7. The study quality was generally high. The RR of IBS symptoms persisting with 5-HT3 antagonists vs. placebo was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.86), with a similar benefit for both alosetron and cilansetron. Tegaserod was also superior to placebo (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80-0.90). Renzapride and cisapride had no benefit in IBS. CONCLUSIONS: Alosetron, cilansetron, and tegaserod are all effective in the treatment of IBS. Serious adverse events were rare in the eligible RCTs included in this systematic review.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据