RESUMO
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional bowel disorder that may involve disturbance of the gastrointestinal microbiota. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of probiotics in patients with IBS. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases up to 1 April, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with IBS that compared probiotics to placebo or no therapy were eligible for the analysis. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to calculate the relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of remaining symptoms after therapy. Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference (SMD) with the 95% CI. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs involving 3,452 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with placebo, patients using probiotics had a lower incidence of persistence of symptoms (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89, P < 0.0001). Also, probiotics exerted a beneficial effect on global symptoms and the abdominal pain score (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.14, P < 0.00001), bloating score (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.03, P = 0.01), and flatulence score (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.05, P = 0.01). However, patients treated with probiotics had a higher incidence of any adverse event (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with multi-strain probiotics can improve IBS symptoms. Further research is required if probiotics are to be adopted as a treatment for IBS.
Assuntos
Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/tratamento farmacológico , Probióticos/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/fisiopatologia , Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/terapia , Probióticos/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND & AIM: Both intradetrusor OnabotulinumtoxinA (BTX) and Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) as third-line therapies for urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) are increasingly being utilized. However, there are differences in preference between patients and medical personnel in clinical practice. This meta-analysis was designed to compare BTX versus SNM in treatment of UUI. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from January 1, 1992 to April 22, 2018. Mean differences (MDs) and risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to compare the outcomes of the groups. All the MDs were after subtracting OnabotulinumtoxinA data from Sacral neuromodulation data. RRs were acquired from comparing OnabotulinumtoxinA data to Sacral neuromodulation data. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2. This work has been reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) Guidelines. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials and two retrospective studies (Nâ¯=â¯1649 participants) were identified for the present analysis. In change from baseline in UUI episodes (UUIE) per day, comparing BTX groups with SNM groups, the effects were observed through 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 month, with pooled MDs of -0.62, -0.55, -0.38, -1.02 and -0.50 respectively. In UUIE reduction post treatment, the pooled RRs of complete UUIE reductions through 4 and 6 months respectively were 5.13 and 6.63. Significant results were observed through overall times in more than 75% UUIE reduction. No significance was found in more than 50% UUIE reduction. Significant results were observed in urinary tract infection. More treatment satisfaction were found in BTX groups than that in SNM groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.29; Pâ¯=â¯0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Generally, BTX seems superior to SNM in treatment of UUI but inferior regarding safety. Patients receiving BTX experienced a higher treatment satisfaction.