临床肝胆病杂志
臨床肝膽病雜誌
림상간담병잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HEPATOLOGY
2014年
12期
1319-1324
,共6页
骆菁怡%张立婷%鲁明霞%刘雅莉%肖萍
駱菁怡%張立婷%魯明霞%劉雅莉%肖萍
락정이%장립정%로명하%류아리%초평
脂肪肝%二甲双胍%维生素E%Meta分析
脂肪肝%二甲雙胍%維生素E%Meta分析
지방간%이갑쌍고%유생소E%Meta분석
fatty liver%metformin%vitamin E%Meta-analysis
目的:比较二甲双胍与维生素E治疗非酒精性脂肪性肝病(NAFLD)的疗效及不良反应的差异。方法检索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、万方数据库、维普及中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)2014年4月10日前发表的有关二甲双胍与维生素E治疗NAFLD的随机对照试验(RCT),对符合纳入标准的临床研究进行Meta分析。结果共纳入4篇RCT,3篇为英文,1篇为中文。Meta分析结果显示,有效率:口服二甲双胍与口服维生素E后的血清ALT变化量相比,二甲双胍的有效率更高(P<0.0001);口服二甲双胍与口服维生素E后的血清AST、身体质量指数(BMI)、空腹血糖、甘油三酯的变化量差异均无统计学意义(P值分别为0.30、0.39、0.82、0.74);二甲双胍治疗后的肝活组织检查脂肪变性得分变化量、小叶炎性得分变化量及气球样改变不如口服维生素E后的变化量。安全性:二甲双胍能够有效降低患者血清ALT和GGT水平,而不会造成肝细胞损伤(P值分别为0.008、0.01)。不良反应发生率:仅1篇文献报道二甲双胍组患者出现轻微腹泻及腹痛、腹部不适,差异无统计学意义。结论二甲双胍较维生素E可明显降低NAFLD患者的血清ALT水平,维生素E在改善肝细胞活组织检查结果方面优于二甲双胍,而二者在降低AST、BMI、空腹血糖、甘油三酯方面差异无统计学意义。由于所纳入的原始文献和患者数量有限,且存在选择性偏倚和实施偏倚,期待有更高质量的随机双盲对照试验提供有效证据。
目的:比較二甲雙胍與維生素E治療非酒精性脂肪性肝病(NAFLD)的療效及不良反應的差異。方法檢索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中國知網、萬方數據庫、維普及中國生物醫學文獻數據庫(CBM)2014年4月10日前髮錶的有關二甲雙胍與維生素E治療NAFLD的隨機對照試驗(RCT),對符閤納入標準的臨床研究進行Meta分析。結果共納入4篇RCT,3篇為英文,1篇為中文。Meta分析結果顯示,有效率:口服二甲雙胍與口服維生素E後的血清ALT變化量相比,二甲雙胍的有效率更高(P<0.0001);口服二甲雙胍與口服維生素E後的血清AST、身體質量指數(BMI)、空腹血糖、甘油三酯的變化量差異均無統計學意義(P值分彆為0.30、0.39、0.82、0.74);二甲雙胍治療後的肝活組織檢查脂肪變性得分變化量、小葉炎性得分變化量及氣毬樣改變不如口服維生素E後的變化量。安全性:二甲雙胍能夠有效降低患者血清ALT和GGT水平,而不會造成肝細胞損傷(P值分彆為0.008、0.01)。不良反應髮生率:僅1篇文獻報道二甲雙胍組患者齣現輕微腹瀉及腹痛、腹部不適,差異無統計學意義。結論二甲雙胍較維生素E可明顯降低NAFLD患者的血清ALT水平,維生素E在改善肝細胞活組織檢查結果方麵優于二甲雙胍,而二者在降低AST、BMI、空腹血糖、甘油三酯方麵差異無統計學意義。由于所納入的原始文獻和患者數量有限,且存在選擇性偏倚和實施偏倚,期待有更高質量的隨機雙盲對照試驗提供有效證據。
목적:비교이갑쌍고여유생소E치료비주정성지방성간병(NAFLD)적료효급불량반응적차이。방법검색PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、중국지망、만방수거고、유보급중국생물의학문헌수거고(CBM)2014년4월10일전발표적유관이갑쌍고여유생소E치료NAFLD적수궤대조시험(RCT),대부합납입표준적림상연구진행Meta분석。결과공납입4편RCT,3편위영문,1편위중문。Meta분석결과현시,유효솔:구복이갑쌍고여구복유생소E후적혈청ALT변화량상비,이갑쌍고적유효솔경고(P<0.0001);구복이갑쌍고여구복유생소E후적혈청AST、신체질량지수(BMI)、공복혈당、감유삼지적변화량차이균무통계학의의(P치분별위0.30、0.39、0.82、0.74);이갑쌍고치료후적간활조직검사지방변성득분변화량、소협염성득분변화량급기구양개변불여구복유생소E후적변화량。안전성:이갑쌍고능구유효강저환자혈청ALT화GGT수평,이불회조성간세포손상(P치분별위0.008、0.01)。불량반응발생솔:부1편문헌보도이갑쌍고조환자출현경미복사급복통、복부불괄,차이무통계학의의。결론이갑쌍고교유생소E가명현강저NAFLD환자적혈청ALT수평,유생소E재개선간세포활조직검사결과방면우우이갑쌍고,이이자재강저AST、BMI、공복혈당、감유삼지방면차이무통계학의의。유우소납입적원시문헌화환자수량유한,차존재선택성편의화실시편의,기대유경고질량적수궤쌍맹대조시험제공유효증거。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of metformin versus vitamin E in the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)of NAFLD treatment with metformin and vitamin E,which were published before April 10,2014,were retrieved from international and domestic biomedical databases including the PubMed,EMbase,Co-chrane Library,Web of Science,CNKI,WANFANG,VIP,and CBM.Clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria were chosen for meta-a-nalysis.Results Four RCTs were included,of which three were published in English and one in Chinese.Meta-analysis data showed that metformin had a significantly higher effective rate than vitamin E in terms of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT)alternation post oral treat-ment (P<0.0001).There were no significant differences in body mass index (BMI)and serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST),fasting blood glucose (FBG),and triglyceride (TG)levels post oral treatment (P=0.30,0.39,0.82,and 0.74,respectively).Liver biopsy showed that after metformin treatment,the alterations in fatty degeneration and lobular inflammation scores,as well as balloon-like changes, were less than those post vitamin E treatment.Regarding clinical safety,metformin effectively reduced serum ALT and gamma-glutamyl trans-ferase levels without causing hepatocyte damage (P=0.008 and 0.01,respectively).Only one RCT mentioned the occurrence of mild diarrhea and abdominal pain or discomfort in the metformin group,but there was no significant difference from the vitamin group.Conclusion Among NAFLD patients,metformin reduces serum ALT levels more significantly than vitamin E,while the latter has its advantage in improving the re-sults of liver biopsy.However,these two drugs have no significant differences in reducing BMI and AST,FBG,and TG levels.This study in-cluded limited numbers of original references and patients,and it might involve selection and implementation biases.RCTs of higher quality are expected to provide more effective evidence for assessing the clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of metformin versus vitamin E.