首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

咪唑斯汀对比氯雷他定治疗过敏性鼻炎的疗效与安全性的Meta分析
引用本文:吴 斌,苏 娜,吴逢波,徐 珽. 咪唑斯汀对比氯雷他定治疗过敏性鼻炎的疗效与安全性的Meta分析[J]. 中国药房, 2014, 0(20): 1904-1907
作者姓名:吴 斌  苏 娜  吴逢波  徐 珽
作者单位:四川大学华西医院药剂科,成都610041
摘    要:目的:系统评价咪唑斯汀对比氯雷他定治疗过敏性鼻炎(AR)的疗效和安全性。方法:计算机检索Medline、EMBase、Cochrane CENTRAL、中国期刊全文数据库、中国生物医学数据库、中文科技期刊全文数据库和万方数据库中咪唑斯汀对比氯雷他定治疗AR的随机对照试验(RCT),对纳入研究进行质量评价和资料提取后,采用Rev Man 5.2统计软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入9项RCT,合计1 397例患者。Meta分析结果显示,咪唑斯汀治疗AR患者的总有效率[RR=1.08,95%CI(1.02,1.15),P=0.01]、总体症状评分[MD=-0.42,95%CI(-0.75,-0.08),P=0.01]和鼻塞症状评分[MD=-0.22,95%CI(-0.42,-0.01),P=0.04]显著优于氯雷他定,而喷嚏[MD=-0.08,95%CI(-0.24,0.08),P=0.31]、鼻涕[MD=-0.04,95%CI(-0.18,0.10),P=0.54]和鼻痒症状评分[MD=-0.01,95%CI(-0.13,0.12),P=0.93]比较差异无统计学意义;两组患者困倦、头晕、口干发生率和心电图QTC值比较差异亦无统计学意义。结论:咪唑斯汀治疗AR可以改善患者的鼻塞症状,总体疗效优于氯雷他定,而安全性与氯雷他定相当。由于纳入研究较少,质量不高,该结论尚需大样本、高质量的RCT进一步验证。

关 键 词:咪唑斯汀  氯雷他定  过敏性鼻炎  Meta分析

A Meta-analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Mizolastine versus Loratadine for Allergic Rhinitis
WU Bin,SU Na,WU Feng-bo,XU. A Meta-analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Mizolastine versus Loratadine for Allergic Rhinitis[J]. China Pharmacy, 2014, 0(20): 1904-1907
Authors:WU Bin  SU Na  WU Feng-bo  XU
Affiliation:Ting(Dept. of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China)
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mizolastine versus loratadine for allergic rhinitis (AR) sys tematically. METHODS: Randomized controlled trails (RCTs) about mizolastine versus loratadine for AR were gathered from Medline, EMBase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, CBM and Wanfang Databases. The quality of included RCTs was evaluated. Meta-analysis was carried out by Rev Man 5.2 software. RESULTS: A total of 9 RCTs were included, involving 1 397 patients. Meta-analysis indicated total effective rate [RR= 1.08,95% CI(1.02, 1. 15), P=0.01], total symptom score [MD= 0.42,95% CI (-0.75, - 0.08), P=0.01] and nasal obstruction score [MD=- 0.22, 95% CI ( - 0.42, - 0.01), P=0.04] of mizolastine were better than those of loratadine for AR. The score of sneeze, nasal mucus and rhinocnesmus had no statistical significance [MD= -0.08, 95%CI(-0.24,0.08), P=0.31], [MD=-0.04, 95%CI(-0.18,0.10), P=0.54], [MD=-0.01, 95%CI(-0.13, 0.12), P=0.93], respectively. There was no statistical significance of drowsiness, dizziness, thirst and QTC between 2 groups [OR=1.33,95%CI(0.70, 2.50),P=0.38], [OR=1.25,95%CI(0.30, 5.18),P=0.76], [OR=0.77,95%CI(0.35, 1.69),P=0.51] and [MD= 1.18,95 % CI ( -4.60, 2.23), P= 0.50], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mizolastine could improve nasal obstruction symptom, and total effective rate of it is better than loratadine while they have similar safety for AR. Due to the number and quality of included studies, more large-scale and high quality RCTs are needed.
Keywords:Mizolastine  Loratadine  Allergic rhinitis  Meta-analysis
本文献已被 CNKI 维普 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号