摘要
目的系统评价索利那新和托特罗定对照治疗膀胱过度活动症(OAB)的疗效及安全性。方法搜集运用索利那新和托特罗定对比治疗OAB的随机对照试验中英文文献,并追查已纳入文献的参考文献。使用统计软件Rev Man5.0完成Meta分析。结果共纳入8个研究,总样本量约832例进行Meta分析,其基线经检验一致。通过比较用药后5项判效指标及不良反应。Meta分析发现索利那新和托特罗定在改善OAB 24 h尿急次数、24 h尿失禁次数及24 h夜尿次数方面差异无统计学意义;但索利那新在改善24 h排尿次数及每次尿量方面优于托特罗定,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。不良反应与托特罗定相比,索利那新口干发生率低50%,差异有统计学意义;便秘、视物模糊及消化不良方面,二者差异无统计学意义。结论索利那新和托特罗定均可改善OAB症状,但在改善24 h排尿次数及每次尿量、口干方面索利那新优于托特罗定。本研究纳入文献和样本量有限,建议进行大样本、长期随访的高质量临床试验,提供更佳循证证据。
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of solifenacin versus tolterodine, for treatment of overactive bladder（OAB）. Methods Chinese and English literatures of randomized controlled trials using solifenacin versus tolterodine for treatment of OAB were collected, and the references included in the literatures were searched. Statistical software, Rev Man 5.0 was used for the meta-analysis. Results Eight studies, involving a total sample size of 832 cases, were included for the meta-analysis, with the same examined baseline. By comparing five common parameters and adverse reactions after medication, meta-analysis found that there were no statistical differences in improving OAB daily frequency of urgent urination, urinary incontinence, and nocturia between using solife-nacin and tolterodine. However, the effect of using solifenacin in improving daily frequency of urination and micturi-tion volume per voiding were better than those of using tolterodine, with statistically significant differences（ P〈0.05）.For adverse reactions, the dry mouth incidence of using solifenacin was 50% lower than that of using tolterodine, with statistically significant difference（P〈0.05）. There were no statistical differences in constipation, blurred vision, and dyspepsia between using solifenacin and tolterodine. Conclusion Both of solifenacin and tolterodine can improve symptoms of OAB, whereas the effects of using solifenacin in improving daily frequency of urination, micturition vol-ume per voiding, and dry mouth are better than those of using tolterodine. As the included literatures and sample size were limited, large sample size and long-term follow-up of high-quality clinical trial can provide better evidence-based findings.
出处
《中国药物与临床》
CAS
2015年第7期912-916,共5页
Chinese Remedies & Clinics
