Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose versus standard-dose cyclosporine immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMbase, SCI, CBM and The Cochrane Library from the establishment to December 2009 to screen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of low-dose versus standard-dose cyclosporine immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Quality assessment and meta-analyses were performed for the included studies. Results A total of 6 RCTs involving 1551 patients were identified, among which 4 RCTs were graded A and two were graded B. The meta-analyses indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups at the end of 6-month and 12-month follow-up in the acute rejection rate at a RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.65 and a RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.71 to 1.57, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups at the end of 6-month and 12-month follow-up in the patients’ death rate at a RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.20 to 2.03 and a RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.24, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in renal function and safety. Conclusion Based on the current evidence, compared with standard-dose CsA, low-dose CsA has the same effect and safety for the short-term results, but the long-term results need to be further studied.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin vs. placebo for patients with type 2 diabetes.Methods The following databases as The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010), PubMed (1978 to September, 2010), EMbase (1974 to September, 2010), CNKI (1978 to September, 2010), VIP (1989 to September, 2010) and CBM (1978 to September, 2010) were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vildagliptin vs. placebo in treating type 2 diabetes. Two reviewers screened the trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, assessed the quality in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration, and conducted meta-analyses with RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 13 studies were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that the vildagliptin given as monotherapy led to greater reduction in HbA1c compared with the placebo (MD= –0.76, 95%CI –0.94 to –0.58, Plt;0.000 01), but it was inferior to the placebo in losing weight (MD=0.68, 95%CI 0.29 to 1.07, P=0.000 6). When the vildagliptin was given as monotherapy, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of overall adverse events (AEs) (OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.21, P=0.98) and hypoglycaemia (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.65, P=0.89). When the vildagliptin was combined with other oral antihyperglycemic drugs or insulin, it produced greater reduction in level of HbA1c (MD= –0.76, 95%CI –0.94 to –0.58, Plt;0.000 01), and there was no statistically significant difference between vildagliptin and placebo in weight loss (MD=0.40, 95%CI –0.25 to 1.05, P=0.23), AEs (OR=0.95, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.18, P=0.62) and hypoglycaemia (OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.49 to 2.53, P=0.80). Conclusion The vildagliptin treatment for type 2 diabetes is effective and safe. A long-term study in large scale with high quality is required to confirm its long-term outcomes.
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of cyclosporine A (CsA) for aplastic anemia (AA) in China. Methods Randomized controlled trails (RCTs) of CsA for AA were collected from CBMdisc (1978 to 2008), CNKI (1979 to 2008), and VIP (1989 to 2008). Other relevant journals were also hand searched. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated, and data analyses were performed with The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 4.2.0. Results A total of 19 RCTs were included. As for the total effective rate and complete remission rate, significant differences were noted between CsA + androgen vs. androgen alone, CsA + androgen combination vs. androgen combination, as well as CsA + androgen + other drugs vs. androgen + other drugs [total effective rate: RRs and 95%CIs were 1.48 (1.28 to 1.70), 1.67 (1.17 to 2.39), and 1.51 (1.09 to 2.08); complete remission rate: RRs and 95%CIs were 2.06 (1.33 to 3.19), 3.52 (1.19 to 10.39), and 1.54 (1.00 to 2.38)]. Conclusion According to the domestic evidence, treatment with CsA for AA may improve the total effective rate and complete remission rate. However, more high quality clinical trials are expected for further study.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of mesalazine versus sulfasalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.Methods The literatures were searched from PubMed (1966 to January 2010), the Cochrane Library (1966 to January 2010), EMbase (1974 to January 2010), CNKI (1994 to January 2010), VIP (1989 to January 2010), and CBM (1978 to January 2010). The data were extracted, the quality of studies was evaluated according to The Cochrane Handbook, and meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Sixteen RCTs involving 1 333 patients were included in this study. The results of meta-analyses showed that the total effective rate of the mesalazine group was significantly higher than that of the sulfasalazine group (RR=1.10, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.17, Plt;0.05), and significant differences were noted in the total remission rate (RR=1.82, 95%CI 1.14 to 2.91, Plt;0.05), while there was no significant difference in the relapse rate between the two groups (RR=0.86, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.29, Pgt;0.05). Twelve RCTs reported adverse effects and meta-analyses showed that the incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower in the mesalazine group than in the sulfasalazine group (RR=0.56, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.73, Plt;0.05). Conclusion Analyses show that mesalazine is much more effective and safe in the management of ulcerative colitis than sulfasalazine. However, there is a moderate risk of bias due to methodological quality problems in all 16 included RCTs, so more strictly-designed multi-centered randomized controlled trials with high quality in large-scale are needed to confirm this result.
【摘要】 目的 系统评价司帕沙星对比氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核的有效性和安全性。 方法 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库（2010年第2期）和PubMed（1978年-2010年10月）、EMBASE（1974年-2010年10月）、中国学术期刊网络出版总库（1978年-2010年10月）、维普（1989年-2010年10月）、中国生物医学文献数据库（1978年-2010年10月）；手工检索其他相关杂志。检索语种为中文和英文。纳入司帕沙星对比氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核的随机对照试验。按Cochrane系统评价的方法评价纳入研究质量，用RevMan 5.0软件对数据进行Meta分析。 结果 共纳入8篇研究，Meta分析结果显示司帕沙星组与氧氟沙星组相比，痰菌转阴率、病灶显著吸收率、空洞闭合率均高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 结论 现有的证据表明，司帕沙星与其他抗结核药物联用治疗难治、耐多药肺结核的疗效优于氧氟沙星的联用方案，但由于纳入的文献数量有限，质量参差不齐，存在潜在的发表偏倚。【Abstract】 Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of sparfloxacin versus ofloxacin in treatment of multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Methods Literatures were retrieved from PubMed (1978-October, 2010), EMBASE (1974-October 2010), Cochrane library (2nd volume, 2010), China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (1978-October, 2010), VIP (1989-October, 2010) and CBM (1978 to October, 2010) by computer, and searched some other relevant journals manually. Chinese and English were both used in the search. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on sparfloxacin versus ofloxacin in treating pulmonary tuberculosis were included in this study. Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.0 software. Results The meta-analysis of 8 included RCTs showed that the sputum negative conversion rate, focus absorption rate, cavity closure rate in the sparfloxacin group were significantly higher than the ofloxacin group (P＜0.05). Conclusions The analysis indicates that combined treatment with sparfloxacin has a better effect in treating MDR-TB than with ofloxacin. However, the reliability of this review may be affected by the number and quality of studies included. Large-scale randomized controlled trials of high quality are needed to confirm the conclusions above.
目的 了解2007年-2008年成都地区17家医院消化系统药物的使用状况。 方法 采用限定日剂量（DDD）的方法，对成都地区2007年-2008年17家医院消化系统用药的销售金额、用药频度（DDDs）等进行统计分析。 结果 2007-2008年成都地区17家医院消化系统用药总金额分别为12 527.89万元和16 446.21万元，居所有药物销售总额的第5位。在金额排序和用药频度排序中，抗溃疡药、肝病用药居于前列。 结论 消化系统药物的应用状态与同期的整体增长保持一致，相比上一年略有上涨。抗溃疡药中的质子泵抑制剂以其优异的性价比，引领着消化系统药物销售额的增长。