-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Collagenous colitis is a disorder that is recognized as a cause of chronic diarrhea. Treatment has been based mainly on anecdotal evidence. This review was performed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Collagenous colitis is a disorder that is recognized as a cause of chronic diarrhea. Treatment has been based mainly on anecdotal evidence. This review was performed to identify therapies for collagenous colitis that have been proven in randomized trials.
OBJECTIVES
To determine effective treatments for patients with clinically active collagenous colitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Relevant papers published between 1970 and January 2002 were identified via the MEDLINE, PUBMED, and EMBASE databases. Manual searches from the references of identified papers, as well as review papers on collagenous or microscopic colitis were performed to identify additional studies. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research submitted in abstract form only. Finally, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group Specialized Trials Register were searched for other studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Four randomized trials were identified. One trial studied bismuth subsalicylate (published in abstract form only), and 3 trials (2 published in abstract form only) studied budesonide in the therapy of collagenous colitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted independently by each author onto 2x2 tables (treatment versus placebo and response versus no response). For therapies assessed in one trial only, p-values were derived using the chi-square test. For therapies assessed in more than one trial, summary test statistics were derived using the Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals. Data were combined for analysis only if the outcomes were sufficiently similar in definition.
MAIN RESULTS
There were 9 patients with collagenous colitis in the trial studying bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks). Those randomized to active drug were more likely to have clinical (p=0.003) and histological (p=0.003) improvement than those assigned to placebo. A total of 86 patients were enrolled in 3 trials studying budesonide (9 mg daily for 6 to 8 weeks). The pooled odds ratio for clinical response to treatment with budesonide was 16.79 (95% CI 7.28-38.74), with a number needed to treat of 2 patients. There was significant histological improvement with treatment in all 3 trials studying budesonide therapy.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Budesonide is effective in the treatment of collagenous colitis. The evidence for bismuth subsalicylate is weaker, but still important. The roles of these and other therapies in inducing or maintaining remission (as opposed to clinical or histological improvement) of collagenous colitis are unknown.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bismuth; Budesonide; Colitis; Collagen; Humans; Organometallic Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylates
PubMed: 12519604
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003575 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Collagenous colitis is a disorder that is recognized as a cause of chronic diarrhea. Treatment has been based mainly on anecdotal evidence. This review was performed to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Collagenous colitis is a disorder that is recognized as a cause of chronic diarrhea. Treatment has been based mainly on anecdotal evidence. This review was performed to identify therapies for collagenous colitis that have been proven in randomized trials.
OBJECTIVES
To determine effective treatments for patients with clinically active collagenous colitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Relevant papers published between 1970 and October 2002 were identified via the MEDLINE, PUBMED, and EMBASE databases. Manual searches from the references of identified papers, as well as review papers on collagenous or microscopic colitis were performed to identify additional studies. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research submitted in abstract form only. Finally, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group Specialized Trials Register were searched for other studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Four randomized trials were identified. One trial studied bismuth subsalicylate (published in abstract form only), and 3 trials (1 published in abstract form only) studied budesonide in the therapy of collagenous colitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted independently by each author onto 2x2 tables (treatment versus placebo and response versus no response). For therapies assessed in one trial only, p-values were derived using the chi-square test. For therapies assessed in more than one trial, summary test statistics were derived using the Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals. Data were combined for analysis only if the outcomes were sufficiently similar in definition.
MAIN RESULTS
There were 9 patients with collagenous colitis in the trial studying bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks). Those randomized to active drug were more likely to have clinical (p=0.003) and histological (p=0.003) improvement than those assigned to placebo. A total of 94 patients were enrolled in 3 trials studying budesonide (9 mg daily for 6 to 8 weeks). The pooled odds ratio for clinical response to treatment with budesonide was 12.32 (95% CI 5.53-27.46), with a number needed to treat of 2 patients. There was significant histological improvement with treatment in all 3 trials studying budesonide therapy.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Budesonide is effective in the treatment of collagenous colitis. The evidence for bismuth subsalicylate is weaker, but still important. The roles of these and other therapies in inducing or maintaining remission (as opposed to clinical or histological improvement) of collagenous colitis are unknown.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bismuth; Budesonide; Chronic Disease; Colitis; Diarrhea; Humans; Organometallic Compounds; Salicylates
PubMed: 12535479
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003575 -
Nutrients Nov 2019The protective effects of probiotic supplementation against radiation-induced diarrhea (RID) have been reported in previous systematic reviews; however so far, only... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on the Incidence of Diarrhea in Cancer Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
The protective effects of probiotic supplementation against radiation-induced diarrhea (RID) have been reported in previous systematic reviews; however so far, only non-conclusive results have been obtained. The objective of this study was to systematically update and evaluate the available evidence for probiotic supplementation. The protocol of this systematic review has been registered (CRD42018106059) with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The primary efficacy outcome was the incidence of RID. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of watery stool, soft stool, and antidiarrheal medication use. There were eight trials, and a total of 1116 participants were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, probiotics were associated with a lower risk of RID [risk ratio (RR) = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.83]. A requisite heterogeneity-adjusted trial sequential analysis indicated conclusive evidence for this beneficial effect. No statistically significant reduction in RID (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.14, 1.91) was observed on subgroup analysis in patients receiving both radiation therapy and chemotherapy. However, those patients receiving only radiation therapy (RT) demonstrated significant benefit (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.48, 0.78). There was a significant difference in the antidiarrheal medication use (RR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.84) observed with the use of probiotics. However, no significant difference was observed for the incidence of soft and watery stool. The use of probiotics is beneficial in preventing RID in patients receiving RT.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Diarrhea; Dietary Supplements; Humans; MEDLINE; Middle Aged; Neoplasms; Placebos; Probiotics; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 31783578
DOI: 10.3390/nu11122886 -
Anales de Pediatria (Barcelona, Spain :... Nov 2008To estimate, through a systematic review of the literature, the efficacy of racecadotril in the treatment of acute diarrhoea. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate, through a systematic review of the literature, the efficacy of racecadotril in the treatment of acute diarrhoea.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Randomised trials carried out in children comparing racecadotril with placebo in terms of diarrhoea recovery, stools output and adverse effects were selected. Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, mRCT, Pascal) and bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched, and the drug developer was contacted. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the retrieved articles and extracted the data.
RESULTS
Two small sample size randomised trials (135 and 172 children) of moderate quality were selected. They included children with less than five days diarrhoea and aged between 3 months and 4 years. There was no difference in the proportion of children who recovered by day 5 (RR=0.73, CI 95% 0.29 to 1.81), although the stools volume during the first 48 hours was less in the racecadotril group (SMD=-0.65, CI 95% -0.88 to -0.52). There is no difference in the risk of vomiting (RR=1.16, CI 95% 0.64 to 2.12).
CONCLUSION
The proportion of recoveries by the 5th day is the same, although the stool volumes during the first 48 hours are less in the racecadotril treated children. It would be interesting to study the efficacy in a primary care setting assessing the cure rate, the stool volumes and the admission rate to elucidate if there is room for this drug.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antidiarrheals; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea, Infantile; Humans; Infant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiorphan
PubMed: 19128744
DOI: 10.1157/13127998 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Dec 2018Shiga-toxin Escherichia coli productor (STEC) provokes frequently an important intestinal damage that may be considered in differential diagnosis with the onset of...
BACKGROUND
Shiga-toxin Escherichia coli productor (STEC) provokes frequently an important intestinal damage that may be considered in differential diagnosis with the onset of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). The aim of this work is to review in the current literature about Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) and IBD symptoms at the onset, comparing the clinical presentation and symptoms, as the timing of diagnosis and of the correct treatment of both these conditions is a fundamental prognostic factor. A focus is made about the association between typical or atypical HUS and IBD and a possible renal involvement in patient with IBD (IgA-nephropathy).
METHODS
A systematic review of scientific articles was performed consulting the databases PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and consulting most recent textbooks of Pediatric Nephrology.
RESULTS
In STEC-associated HUS, that accounts for 90% of cases of HUS in children, the microangiopathic manifestations are usually preceded by gastrointestinal symptoms. Initial presentation may be considered in differential diagnosis with IBD onset. The transverse and ascending colon are the segments most commonly affected, but any area from the esophagus to the perianal area can be involved. The more serious manifestations include severe hemorrhagic colitis, bowel necrosis and perforation, rectal prolapse, peritonitis and intussusception. Severe gastrointestinal involvement may result in life-threatening complications as toxic megacolon and transmural necrosis of the colon with perforation, as in Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Transmural necrosis of the colon may lead to subsequent colonic stricture, as in Crohn Disease (CD). Perianal lesions and strictures are described. In some studies, intestinal biopsies were performed to exclude IBD. Elevation of pancreatic enzymes is common. Liver damage and cholecystitis are other described complications. There is no specific form of therapy for STEC HUS, but appropriate fluid and electrolyte management (better hyperhydration when possible), avoiding antidiarrheal drugs, and possibly avoiding antibiotic therapy, are recommended as the best practice. In atypical HUS (aHUS) gastrointestinal manifestation are rare, but recently a study evidenced that gastrointestinal complications are common in aHUS in presence of factor-H autoantibodies. Some report of patients with IBD and contemporary atypical-HUS were found, both for CD and UC. The authors conclude that deregulation of the alternative complement pathway may manifest in other organs besides the kidney. Finally, searching for STEC-infection, or broadly for Escherichia coli (E. coli) infection, and IBD onset, some reviews suggest a possible role of adherent invasive E. coli (AIEC) on the pathogenesis of IBD.
CONCLUSIONS
The current literature shows that gastrointestinal complications of HUS are quite exclusive of STEC-associated HUS, whereas aHUS have usually mild or absent intestinal involvement. Severe presentation as toxic megacolon, perforation, ulcerative colitis, peritonitis is similar to IBD at the onset. Moreover, some types of E. coli (AIEC) have been considered a risk factor for IBD. Recent literature on aHUS shows that intestinal complications are more common than described before, particularly for patients with anti-H factor antibodies. Moreover, we found some report of patient with both aHUS and IBD, who benefit from anti-C5 antibodies injection (Eculizumab).
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Anemia, Hemolytic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Apoptosis; Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome; Combined Modality Therapy; Contraindications, Drug; Diagnosis, Differential; Diarrhea; Escherichia coli Infections; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Granuloma; Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Necrosis; Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 30561409
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v89i9-S.7911 -
PLoS Medicine Mar 2007Loperamide is widely used in adults for acute diarrhea. However, its use in children has been discouraged by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Loperamide is widely used in adults for acute diarrhea. However, its use in children has been discouraged by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics owing to concerns over safety and efficacy in young children.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of loperamide compared with placebo for acute diarrhea in children, we reviewed Medline, EMBase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and bibliographies of known clinical trials and of review articles, and we also interviewed key investigators in the field. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of children younger than 12 y of age with acute diarrhea, comparing loperamide with placebo. Included trials reported data on diarrhea duration or severity, or provided data on adverse effects. Compared with patients who received placebo, patients allocated to loperamide were less likely to continue to have diarrhea at 24 h (prevalence ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 0.78), had a shorter duration of diarrhea by 0.8 d (95% CI: 0.7 to 0.9 d), and had a lower count of stools at 24 h (0.84, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.92). Results were similar when random-effects summaries were estimated. Serious adverse events, defined as ileus, lethargy, or death, were reported in eight out of 927 children allocated to loperamide (0.9%, 95% CI: 0.4% to 1.7%). Serious adverse events were not reported in any of the 764 children allocated to placebo (0%, 95% CI: 0% to 0.5%). Among the children allocated to loperamide, serious adverse events were reported only among children younger than 3 y.
CONCLUSIONS
In children who are younger than 3 y, malnourished, moderately or severely dehydrated, systemically ill, or have bloody diarrhea, adverse events outweigh benefits even at doses
Topics: Age Factors; Child; Child, Preschool; Dehydration; Diarrhea; Humans; Infant; Loperamide; Models, Statistical; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensitivity and Specificity; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17388664
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040098 -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2016Looking at the worldwide emergency of antimicrobial resistance, international travellers appear to have a central role in spreading the bacteria across the globe.... (Review)
Review
Looking at the worldwide emergency of antimicrobial resistance, international travellers appear to have a central role in spreading the bacteria across the globe. Travellers' diarrhoea (TD) is the most common disease encountered by visitors to the (sub)tropics. Both TD and its treatment with antibiotics have proved significant independent risk factors of colonization by resistant intestinal bacteria while travelling. Travellers should therefore be given preventive advice regarding TD and cautioned about taking antibiotics: mild or moderate TD does not require antibiotics. Logical alternatives are medications with effects on gastrointestinal function, such as loperamide. The present review explores literature on loperamide in treating TD. Adhering to manufacturer's dosage recommendations, loperamide offers a safe and effective alternative for relieving mild and moderate symptoms. Moreover, loperamide taken singly does no predispose to contracting MDR bacteria. Most importantly, we found no proof that would show antibiotics to be significantly more effective than loperamide in treating mild/moderate TD.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antidiarrheals; Case-Control Studies; Diarrhea; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Humans; Loperamide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Travel
PubMed: 27363327
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2016.06.006 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Sep 2007Racecadotril (acetorphan) is an antisecretory drug that exerts its antidiarrhoeal effects by inhibiting intestinal enkephalinase. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Racecadotril (acetorphan) is an antisecretory drug that exerts its antidiarrhoeal effects by inhibiting intestinal enkephalinase.
AIM
To summarize studies testing the efficacy and safety of racecadotril for treating children with acute gastroenteritis.
METHODS
Reports were gathered by searching electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (all up to April 2007), relevant journals, and bibliographies of reviewed articles. Only randomized-controlled trials were included.
RESULTS
Three randomized-controlled trials (471 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two trials reported stool output, and data suggested less stool output in the racecadotril group than in the control group. The duration of diarrhoea was significantly reduced in the three trials reporting this outcome. Achievement of a cure by day 5 was similar in both groups. Adverse effects were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The small number of included trials provided some evidence in favour of the use of racecadotril over placebo or no intervention, to reduce the stool output and duration of diarrhoea in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, more data in out-patients are needed. The safety as well as the cost-effectiveness of the therapy should be explored, before routine therapy with racecadotril is recommended.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antidiarrheals; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Female; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Infant; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiorphan; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17767464
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03444.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opioid for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opioids in newborn infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs which enrolled infants born to mothers with opioid dependence and who were experiencing NAS requiring treatment with an opioid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials (1110 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. Seven studies at low risk of bias were included in sensitivity analysis. Opioid versus no treatment / usual care: a single trial (80 infants) of morphine and supportive care versus supportive care alone reported no difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 4.07; very low certainty evidence). No infant had a seizure. The trial did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. Morphine increased days hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) 15.00, 95% CI 8.86 to 21.14; very low certainty evidence) and treatment (MD 12.50, 95% CI 7.52 to 17.48; very low certainty evidence), but decreased days to regain birthweight (MD -2.80, 95% CI -5.33 to -0.27) and duration (minutes) of supportive care each day (MD -197.20, 95% CI -274.15 to -120.25). Morphine versus methadone: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.67; 2 studies, 147 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study reported no difference in days hospitalisation (MD 1.40, 95% CI -3.08 to 5.88; 116 infants; low certainty evidence), whereas data from two studies found an increase in days treatment (MD 2.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.21; 147 infants; low certainty) for infants treated with morphine. A single study reported no difference in breastfeeding, adverse events, or out of home placement. Morphine versus sublingual buprenorphine: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; 3 studies, 113 infants; very low certainty evidence). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. There was moderate certainty evidence of an increase in days hospitalisation (MD 11.45, 95% CI 5.89 to 17.01; 3 studies, 113 infants), and days treatment (MD 12.79, 95% CI 7.57 to 18.00; 3 studies, 112 infants) for infants treated with morphine. A single adverse event (seizure) was reported in infants exposed to buprenorphine. Morphine versus diluted tincture of opium (DTO): a single study (33 infants) reported no difference in days hospitalisation, days treatment or weight gain (low certainty evidence). Opioid versus clonidine: a single study (31 infants) reported no infant with treatment failure in either group. This study did not report seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. This study did not report adverse events. Opioid versus diazepam: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; 2 studies, 86 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study of 34 infants comparing methadone versus diazepam reported no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Opioid versus phenobarbital: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; 6 studies, 458 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found a reduction in treatment failure in trials titrating morphine to ≧ 0.5 mg/kg/day (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45; 3 studies, 230 infants), whereas a single study using morphine < 0.5 mg/kg/day reported no difference compared to use of phenobarbital (subgroup difference P = 0.05). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study (111 infants) of paregoric versus phenobarbital reported seven infants with seizures in the phenobarbital group, whereas no seizures were reported in two studies (170 infants) comparing morphine to phenobarbital. There was no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. A single study (96 infants) reported no adverse events in either group. Opioid versus chlorpromazine: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of morphine versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; 1 study, 90 infants; moderate certainty evidence). No seizures were reported in either group. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days treatment. This trial reported no adverse events in either group. None of the included studies reported time to control of NAS. Data for duration and severity of NAS were limited, and we were unable to use these data in quantitative synthesis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to supportive care alone, the addition of an opioid may increase duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but may reduce days to regain birthweight and the duration of supportive care each day. Use of an opioid may reduce treatment failure compared to phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. Use of an opioid may have little or no effect on duration of hospitalisation or treatment compared to use of phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. The type of opioid used may have little or no effect on the treatment failure rate. Use of buprenorphine probably reduces duration of hospitalisation and treatment compared to morphine, but there are no data for time to control NAS with buprenorphine, and insufficient evidence to determine safety. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Morphine; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34231914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002059.pub4 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jul 2000To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for the irritable bowel syndrome. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for the irritable bowel syndrome.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic literature search of MEDLINE (1966 to 1999), EMBASE (1980 to 1999), PsycINFO (1967 to 1999), and the Cochrane controlled trials registry and a manual search of references from bibliographies of identified articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel, or crossover trials of a pharmacologic intervention for adult patients that reported outcomes of improvement in global or irritable bowel-specific symptoms.
DATA EXTRACTION
Qualitative and quantitative data reported on study groups, interventions, treatment outcomes, and trial methodologic characteristics.
DATA SYNTHESIS
70 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most common medication classes were smooth-muscle relaxants (16 trials), bulking agents (13 trials), prokinetic agents (6 trials), psychotropic agents (7 trials), and loperamide (4 trials). The strongest evidence for efficacy was shown for smooth-muscle relaxants in patients with abdominal pain as the predominant symptom. Loperamide seems to reduce diarrhea but does not relieve abdominal pain. Although psychotropic agents were shown to produce global improvement, the evidence is based on a small number of studies of suboptimal quality. Psychotropic drugs, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)-receptor antagonists, peppermint oil, and Chinese herbal medicine require further study.
CONCLUSIONS
Smooth-muscle relaxants are beneficial when abdominal pain is the predominant symptom. In contrast, the efficacy of bulking agents has not been established. Loperamide is effective for diarrhea. Evidence for use of psychotropic agents is inconclusive; more high-quality trials of longer duration are needed. Evidence for the efficacy of 5-HT-receptor antagonists seems favorable, although more studies are needed.
Topics: Antidiarrheals; Colonic Diseases, Functional; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Loperamide; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Parasympatholytics; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 10896640
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-133-2-200007180-00013