Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of irbesartan for hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia. Methods The databases such as The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE (by the end of April 2010), SCI (by the end of April 2010), CBM (by the end of April 2010) and CNKI (by the end of April 2010) were searched to collected randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on irbesartan for hypertensive combined with hyperuricaemia. Studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria; data were extracted; the methodological quality was evaluated; and meta-analyses were conducted by using RevMan 5.0.0 software. Results Nine studies involving 977 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the control group, irbesartan was superior in decreasing serum uric acid (SUA) (MD=57.12, 95%CI 16.08 to 98.15, P=0.006); it was similar in controlling blood pressure (Systolic pressure: MD= –0.24, 95%CI –2.19 to 1.71, P=0.81; Diastolic pressure: MD=0.46, 95%CI –1.58 to 2.50, P=0.66), and lower in the incidence rate of adverse reaction (RR=0.07, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.24, P=0.000 1). Conclusion The study suggests that irbesartan is effective and safe to control blood pressure and decrease serum uric acid for hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia. But because all nine included studies are graded C in quality, the conclusion still needs to be further verified by long-term, large scale and high quality studies.
ObjectiveTo systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of indapamide versus calcium channel blockers (CCBs) for the treatment of hypertension. MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2011), PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched from inception to Nov. 2011, for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on indapamide versus CCBs for hypertension. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsIn total, 42 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that, the ΔDBP of indapamide was lower than that of felodipine; and the rest were similar between the two groups in the excellent rate, total effective rate, ΔSBP and ΔDBP, without significant difference (excellent rate:RR=1.01, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.09, P=0.90; total effective rate:RR=1.01, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.06, P=0.69; ΔSBP:MD=-1.21, 95%CI-3.00 to 0.59, P=0.19; ΔDBP:MD=-0.87, 95%CI-1.89 to 0.15, P=0.09). However, the incidence of indapamide was lower than those of nifedipine, nimodipine and nitrendipine, with significant differences. ConclusionBased on current clinical evidence, for hypertension, the effectiveness of indapamide is similar to CCBs, but safer than CCBs.
目的 总结鲑鱼降钙素致不良反应的一般规律和特点。 方法 检索中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、万方数据库（WanFang）1994年1月－2012年3月鲑鱼降钙素所致不良反应的个案报道，按患者年龄、性别、给药途径、用药剂量、不良反应发生时间、临床表现症状、有无过敏史、治疗与转归等进行分类统计分析。 结果 15例不良反应包括皮肤系统、心血管系统、消化系统、神经系统和超敏反应，高年龄段和女性发生率较高。 结论 临床上应重视鲑鱼降钙素可致不良反应，坚持合理用药。
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ramelteon for chronic insomnia in adults. Methods The following databases as CENTRAL, PubMed, EMbase, ISI, CNKI, CBMdisc, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to November 2010. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included. The data extraction and quality assessment were conducted according to the methods of Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook recommend by The Cochrane Collaboration, and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.0 software. Results A total of 5 RCTs involving 1 772 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) Effectiveness: In the effectiveness, ramelteon was superior to placebo in latency to persistent sleep (MD=18.36, 95%CI 11.55 to 25.18, Plt;0.000 01), total sleep time (MD= –15.47, 95%CI –22.50 to –8.43, Plt;0.000 1), sleep efficiency (MD= –3.39, 95%CI –5.32 to –1.46, P=0.000 6), sleep quality (MD=0.14, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.25, P=0.01) after one week treatment and latency to persistent sleep (MD=13.02, 95%CI 6.01 to 20.03, P=0.000 3) except for wake after sleep onset (MD= –8.79, 95%CI –17.24 to –0.35, P=0.04) after one month treatment. b) Safety: significant differences were only found in the female prolactin (MD=5.50, 95%CI 2.02 to 8.98, P=0.002) and male free testosterone (MD=15.30, 95%CI 0.62 to 29.98, P=0.04) between the two groups, rather than in all the other hormones concentration, rebound insomnia, withdrawal syndrome, next-day residual effects and incidence rate of adverse reactions. Conclusion Ramelteon has marked effects on adults’ chronic insomnia after 1-week treatment, but its effect is not obvious after 1-month treatment. The adverse reactions are mostly the somnolence, rising of male free testosterone and female prolactin concentration.
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.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dezocine versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). MethodsWe electronically searched the specialized trials registered in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2013), the Cochrane anesthesia group, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to February, 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on dezocine versus Fentanyl for postoperative PCIA were included. RevMan 5.0 software was used for meta-analysis after critically literature screening, data extracting and assessing of methodological quality independently by two reviewers. ResultsA total of 15 RCTs involving 1 116 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in postoperative analgesia and sedation at the hour-points of 2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h after surgery. As for safety, the incidences of postoperative nausea, vomiting, skin pruritus, respiratory depression and uroschesis in the dezocine group were lower than those in the fentanyl group. ConclusionCompared with fentanyl, dezocine has the same effects of analgesia and sedation for PCIA; its incidence of adverse reactions is lower, so dezocine is safer in clinic.
Objective To evaluate the effect of physician-nurse-pharmacist collaboration on cardiovascular disease risk factors in diabetes patients. Methods Randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on collaboration among physicians, nurses and pharmacists for reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors in diabetes patients were collected from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (Ovid SP), Embase, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, VIP and WanFang. We screened the retrieved studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluated the quality of included studies, and then performed meta-analysis with the Cochrane Collaboration’s Revman 5.3.0 software. Results Seven RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the change in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and low density lipoprotein-cholesterol were significantly reduced in the collaboration group than in usual care group [SMD=–0.39, 95%CI (–0.56, –0.21),P<0.000 1;SMD=–0.30, 95%CI (–0.43, –0.18),P<0.000 01;SMD=–0.37, 95%CI (–0.64, –0.11),P=0.006;SMD=–0.11, 95%CI (–0.16, –0.06),P<0.000 1]. Conclusions Collaboration among physicians, nurses and pharmacists is effective for reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors in diabetes patients. But its long-term efficacy still needs to be confirmed by performing higher quality, large sample RCTs with long-term follow-up.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients. Methods The following databases as The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2011), PubMed (1978 to May 2011), EMbase (1974 to May 2011), CNKI (1978 to May 2011), VIP (1989 to May 2011) and CBM (1978 to May 2011) were searched. The quality of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration system review, and then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0. Results A total of 7 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that HbA1c was significantly reduced in the saxagliptin group than that in placebo group (MD= –0.69, 95%CI –0.78 to –0.60, Plt;0.000 01). There was no significant difference in the incident rate of adverse reaction between two groups (RR=1.02, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.06, P=0.26). Conclusion Saxagliptin is effective and safe for type 2 diabetes. But its long-term efficacy and safety still need to be confirmed by performing more high quality, large sample RCTs with long-term follow-up.