4.7 Review

Systematic review: the efficacy of treatments for irritable bowel syndrome - a European perspective

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 183-205

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02938.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, chronic disorder, characterized by abdominal pain/discomfort, bloating and altered bowel habit. Aim To conduct a systematic evidence-based review of pharmacological therapies currently used, or in clinical development, for the treatment of IBS in Europe. The safety and tolerability of these therapies are the subject of an accompanying review. Methods A literature search was completed for randomized controlled studies which included adult patients with IBS and an active or placebo control, assessed IBS symptoms, and were published in English between January 1980 and June 2005. The level of evidence for efficacy was graded according to the quality of the trial design and the study outcome. Results There is some evidence for improvement of individual IBS symptoms with antidiarrhoeals (diarrhoea), antispasmodics (abdominal pain/discomfort), bulking agents (constipation), tricyclic antidepressants (abdominal pain/discomfort) and behavioural therapy. In contrast, there is strong evidence for the improvement of global IBS symptoms with two new serotonergic agents: the 5-HT4 selective agonist tegaserod (IBS with constipation) and the 5-HT3 antagonist alosetron (IBS with diarrhoea). Further data are required for the 5-HT3 antagonist, cilansetron, and the mixed 5-HT(3)antagonist/5-HT4 agonist renzapride before their utility in IBS can be appraised. Conclusions There is limited evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of therapies currently available in Europe for the treatment of IBS. Overall, there is an absence of pharmacological agents licensed specifically for the treatment of IBS subtypes, and new agents are awaited in Europe that will allow changes in clinical practice to focus on and improve global IBS symptoms.

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