摘要
目的 比较雷贝拉唑与兰索拉唑对根除幽门螺杆菌阳性消化性溃疡患者的安全性与有效性.方法 计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、CNKI、万方数据库和维普数据库查找所有比较雷贝拉唑和兰索拉唑根除幽门螺杆菌阳性消化性溃疡的随机对照试验,检索时间为建库到2014年1月24日.按照纳入及排除标准由两名系统性评价员独立进行随机对照试验的筛选,资料提取和质量评价后采用RevMan 5.2软件进行Meta分析.结果 纳入9个研究,共1 421例患者.安全性方面,雷贝拉唑与兰索拉唑不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义[OR=1.10,95％ CI（0.71～1.71）,P＞0.05];药物依从性方面,雷贝拉唑与兰索拉唑比较,差异无统计学意义[R=0.51,95％CI（0.13 ～1.92）,P＞0.05];有效性方面,雷贝拉唑对幽门螺杆菌根除率优于兰索拉唑,差异有统计学意义[OR=0.65,95％ CI（0.47 ～0.88）P ＜0.01],.雷贝拉唑对溃疡愈合率亦优于兰索拉唑,差异有统计学意义[OR =0.36,95％ CI（0.20～0.65）,P＜0.01].结论 雷贝拉唑有效性优于兰索拉唑,且安全性上无差异.因原始研究的质量高低不一,建议临床上谨慎选择使用,需要更多的大样本多中心的随机对照试验进一步论证.
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of rabeprazole and lansoprazole when used in triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection of pepic ulcer patients. Methods Databases such as PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP were searched from their establishment to 24th of January,2014 for collecting the randomized controlled trials（RCTs） about rabeprazole vs lansoprazole in triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection of pepic ulcer. Study selection, assessment and data extraction was conducted by two reviewers independently, meta-analysis was performed by using the RevMan 5.2 software. Results Nine studies involving 1 421 patients were included. The results showed that rabeprazole has less adverse events [ OR = 1.10,95% CI （0.71 - 1.71 ）, P 〉 0.05 ] than lansoprazole. The results also showed that the compliance of rabeprazole was nearly the same as lansoprazole [ OR = 0.51,95% CI （ 0.13 - 1.92 ） , P 〉 0.05 ]. However, rabeprazole had higher eradication rate than lansoprazole [ OR = 0.65,95% CI （0.47 0.88 ） ,P 〈 0.01 ]. At the same time rabeprazole showed higher healing rate of ulcer [ OR = 0.36,95 % CI （0.20 ~ 0.65）,P 〈 0.01 ]. Conclusion So we can roughly draw a conclusion that rabeprazole shares similar safety indicators while shows higher efficacy than lansoprazole. Due to the poor quality of the original studies, a prudent choice is suggested from this meta-analysis, more high-quality and large-sample studies are needed to confirm this conclusion.
出处
《临床内科杂志》
CAS
2014年第9期621-624,共4页
Journal of Clinical Internal Medicine
