眼科研究
眼科研究
안과연구
CHINESE OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
2009年
12期
1120-1125
,共6页
葛轶睿%王理理%程金伟%黄振平
葛軼睿%王理理%程金偉%黃振平
갈질예%왕리리%정금위%황진평
卢美根%噻吗心安%高眼压%Meta分析%循证医学
盧美根%噻嗎心安%高眼壓%Meta分析%循證醫學
로미근%새마심안%고안압%Meta분석%순증의학
bimatoprost%timolol%high intraocular pressure%meta-analysis%evidence-based medicine
目的 研究卢美根与噻吗心安在青光眼与高眼压症患者中降压的有效性,并观察不良反应.方法 检索PubMed、EMBASE、The Cochrane Library Controlled Trials Register及中国生物医学文献数据库收录的有关卢美根与噻吗心安治疗青光眼与高眼压症的对照研究,并辅以手工检索、因特网搜索.对纳入的6项随机对照试验,针对眼压下降比例、达到目标眼压人数、药物不良反应3项内容进行综合分析.结果 卢美根降眼压效果优于噻吗心安,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)[合并的加权均数差(WMD)＝-2.04%,95% CI(-2.44,-1.64)].3篇文献报道随访3个月时达到目标眼压的患者人数,卢美根组与噻吗心安组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)[合并危险比(RR)=1.87,95% CI(1.45,2.41)];2篇文献报道随访＞6个月时达到目标眼压患者人数,卢美根组与噻吗心安组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)[合并RR＝1.60,95% CI(1.36,1.90)].结膜充血及睫毛变长为拟前列腺素类抗青光眼药物2种较为常见的不良反应,其发生率卢美根组与噻吗心安组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)[合并RR＝4.18,95% CI(2.89,6.05)、RR＝9.40,95% CI(5.62,15.71)].结论 卢美根在降低眼压的程度和随访不同时期达到目标眼压的人数方面均优于噻吗心安.除结膜充血及睫毛变长的发生率卢美根组高于噻吗心安组外,2种药物均未发现有严重的药物相关不良反应.
目的 研究盧美根與噻嗎心安在青光眼與高眼壓癥患者中降壓的有效性,併觀察不良反應.方法 檢索PubMed、EMBASE、The Cochrane Library Controlled Trials Register及中國生物醫學文獻數據庫收錄的有關盧美根與噻嗎心安治療青光眼與高眼壓癥的對照研究,併輔以手工檢索、因特網搜索.對納入的6項隨機對照試驗,針對眼壓下降比例、達到目標眼壓人數、藥物不良反應3項內容進行綜閤分析.結果 盧美根降眼壓效果優于噻嗎心安,差異有統計學意義(P<0.01)[閤併的加權均數差(WMD)＝-2.04%,95% CI(-2.44,-1.64)].3篇文獻報道隨訪3箇月時達到目標眼壓的患者人數,盧美根組與噻嗎心安組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.01)[閤併危險比(RR)=1.87,95% CI(1.45,2.41)];2篇文獻報道隨訪＞6箇月時達到目標眼壓患者人數,盧美根組與噻嗎心安組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.01)[閤併RR＝1.60,95% CI(1.36,1.90)].結膜充血及睫毛變長為擬前列腺素類抗青光眼藥物2種較為常見的不良反應,其髮生率盧美根組與噻嗎心安組比較,差異均有統計學意義(P<0.01)[閤併RR＝4.18,95% CI(2.89,6.05)、RR＝9.40,95% CI(5.62,15.71)].結論 盧美根在降低眼壓的程度和隨訪不同時期達到目標眼壓的人數方麵均優于噻嗎心安.除結膜充血及睫毛變長的髮生率盧美根組高于噻嗎心安組外,2種藥物均未髮現有嚴重的藥物相關不良反應.
목적 연구로미근여새마심안재청광안여고안압증환자중강압적유효성,병관찰불량반응.방법 검색PubMed、EMBASE、The Cochrane Library Controlled Trials Register급중국생물의학문헌수거고수록적유관로미근여새마심안치료청광안여고안압증적대조연구,병보이수공검색、인특망수색.대납입적6항수궤대조시험,침대안압하강비례、체도목표안압인수、약물불량반응3항내용진행종합분석.결과 로미근강안압효과우우새마심안,차이유통계학의의(P<0.01)[합병적가권균수차(WMD)＝-2.04%,95% CI(-2.44,-1.64)].3편문헌보도수방3개월시체도목표안압적환자인수,로미근조여새마심안조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.01)[합병위험비(RR)=1.87,95% CI(1.45,2.41)];2편문헌보도수방＞6개월시체도목표안압환자인수,로미근조여새마심안조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.01)[합병RR＝1.60,95% CI(1.36,1.90)].결막충혈급첩모변장위의전렬선소류항청광안약물2충교위상견적불량반응,기발생솔로미근조여새마심안조비교,차이균유통계학의의(P<0.01)[합병RR＝4.18,95% CI(2.89,6.05)、RR＝9.40,95% CI(5.62,15.71)].결론 로미근재강저안압적정도화수방불동시기체도목표안압적인수방면균우우새마심안.제결막충혈급첩모변장적발생솔로미근조고우새마심안조외,2충약물균미발현유엄중적약물상관불량반응.
Objective Many researches have demonstrated the lowing-intraocular pressure(IOP) effects of bimatoprost and timolol.However,no powerful evidence showed which drug has the better efficacy.This study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of bimatoprost compared with latanoprost in lowing IOP.MethodsThis was a evidence-based medicine science study.Pertinent studies were identified through searches of PubMed,EMBASE,the Cochrane Liberary Controlled Trials Register and Chinese Biomedicine Database using the terms of timolol,blocardren,temserin,timoptic,bimatoprost,lumigan.The intensive searching by hand and up to October 1,2008 was also designed.ResultsSix randomized and controlled studies enrolling a total of 2 094 patients were included in the meta-analysis and three clinical indexes were analyzed.Bimatoprost was associated with greater decline value from baseline IOP in comparison with timolol(P＜0.01) with a weight mean difference -2.04 at final point(95% CI:-2.44 to -1.64).Numerically greater proportions of bimatoprost patients than timolol patients achieved the target IOP at 3 months(from 3 literature) and ＞6 months(from 2 literature) with a pooled RR of 1.87(95% CI:1.45 to 2.41),1.60(95% CI:1.36 to 1.90) (P＜0.01),respectively.Bimatoprost showed a more frequencies in the adverse effects such as conjunctival hyperemia and eyelash growth than timolol with an RR of 4.18 (95% CI:2.89 to 6.05),9.40 (95% CI:5.62 to 15.71).No obvious drug-related side effect was found from literature analysis included both drugs.Conclusion Searched literature offers grade A of evidences for the comparison clinical evaluation of therapy efficacy between bimatoprost and timolol in lowing IOP.Bimatoprost has a better efficacy in lowering IOP and reaching comparable proportions of patients with target IOP than timolol.Both agents are well tolerated.
