Liang Liang1, Jia Yu2, Ling Xiao1, Gaohua Wang3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Hubei Zhang Road (Formerly Ziyang Road), Wuchang District No. 99, Jiefang Road 238, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Hubei Zhang Road (formerly Ziyang Road), Wuchang District No. 99, Jiefang Road 238, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Hubei Zhang Road (Formerly Ziyang Road), Wuchang District No. 99, Jiefang Road 238, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. wgh6402@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with functional dyspepsia often select different pharmacological treatments. We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions in treating functional dyspepsia. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and MEDLINE from the date of database inception to March 28, 2019. A random-effects model was selected to conduct traditional meta-analysis to directly examine the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions. The consistency model was selected to conduct a network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative effects and rank probability of different pharmacological interventions. RESULTS: We included 58 trials (15,629 participants and 21 pharmacological treatments). Network meta-analysis showed that cisapride, domperidone, itopride, and levosulpiride were better than placebo, especially in short term (< 4 weeks). And levosulpiride was significantly more effective than 15 other drugs and placebo (ORs ranging between 0.05 and 0.15). Cisapride was significantly more effective than lansoprazole (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.09-0.99) and tegaserod (OR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07-0.98). The rank probability showed that levosulpiride was most likely to be rank 1 (77%), cinitapride rank 2 (17%), and cisapride rank 3 (23%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed the effectiveness of several pharmacological treatments for ameliorating functional dyspepsia. Furthermore, levosulpiride relatively ranked the best in managing FD. Physicians should be encouraged to apply promising pharmacological interventions (e.g., levosulpiride and cisapride). However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to small study effects.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with functional dyspepsia often select different pharmacological treatments. We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions in treating functional dyspepsia. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and MEDLINE from the date of database inception to March 28, 2019. A random-effects model was selected to conduct traditional meta-analysis to directly examine the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions. The consistency model was selected to conduct a network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative effects and rank probability of different pharmacological interventions. RESULTS: We included 58 trials (15,629 participants and 21 pharmacological treatments). Network meta-analysis showed that cisapride, domperidone, itopride, and levosulpiride were better than placebo, especially in short term (< 4 weeks). And levosulpiride was significantly more effective than 15 other drugs and placebo (ORs ranging between 0.05 and 0.15). Cisapride was significantly more effective than lansoprazole (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.09-0.99) and tegaserod (OR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07-0.98). The rank probability showed that levosulpiride was most likely to be rank 1 (77%), cinitapride rank 2 (17%), and cisapride rank 3 (23%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed the effectiveness of several pharmacological treatments for ameliorating functional dyspepsia. Furthermore, levosulpiride relatively ranked the best in managing FD. Physicians should be encouraged to apply promising pharmacological interventions (e.g., levosulpiride and cisapride). However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to small study effects.
Authors: S Aoki; K Haruma; H Kusunoki; J Hata; M Hara; S Yoshida; S Tanaka; K Chayama Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: R H Jones; S E Lydeard; F D Hobbs; J E Kenkre; E I Williams; S J Jones; J A Repper; J L Caldow; W M Dunwoodie; J M Bottomley Journal: Gut Date: 1990-04 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Alexander C Ford; Pavit Luthra; Jan Tack; Guy E Boeckxstaens; Paul Moayyedi; Nicholas J Talley Journal: Gut Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Rapat Pittayanon; Yuhong Yuan; Natasha P Bollegala; Reena Khanna; Brian E Lacy; Christopher N Andrews; Grigorios I Leontiadis; Paul Moayyedi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 10.864