切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (01) : 52 -61. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2020.01.012

所属专题: 文献

循证医学

长效与标准非麦角类多巴胺受体激动剂治疗帕金森病的Meta分析
周长青1,(), 高唱1, 彭国光2   
  1. 1. 402760 重庆市璧山区人民医院神经内科
    2. 400016 重庆医科大学附属第一医院神经内科
  • 收稿日期:2019-02-03 出版日期:2020-01-15
  • 通信作者: 周长青

Long-acting versus standard non-ergot dopamine agonists in treatment of Parkinson′s disease: a Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails

Changqing Zhou1,(), Chang Gao1, Guoguang Peng2   

  1. 1. Department of Neurology, People′s Hospital of Bishan District, Chongqing 402760, China
    2. Department of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China
  • Received:2019-02-03 Published:2020-01-15
  • Corresponding author: Changqing Zhou
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhou Changqing, Email:
引用本文:

周长青, 高唱, 彭国光. 长效与标准非麦角类多巴胺受体激动剂治疗帕金森病的Meta分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(01): 52-61.

Changqing Zhou, Chang Gao, Guoguang Peng. Long-acting versus standard non-ergot dopamine agonists in treatment of Parkinson′s disease: a Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(01): 52-61.

目的

运用Meta分析的方法,系统评价长效非麦角类多巴胺受体激动剂(NEDA)与标准NEDA在帕金森病(PD)中的有效性、耐受性和安全性。

方法

制定检索策略后,检索PubMed,EMBASE,Cochrane图书馆和Web of Knowledge等数据库,同时进行参考文献的追溯和手工检索(截至2019年8月15日)。按照纳入标准和排除标准进行文献筛选,然后进行文献质量评价和数据提取。采用权重均数差(WMD)、相对危险度(RR)以及95%CI作为统计量,运用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan 5.3软件和Stata 12.0对数据进行分析。

结果

(1)共纳入11个随机对照研究,共3280例患者。(2)Meta分析结果如下。有效性方面:长效NEDA与标准NEDA间在减少UPDRS Ⅱ部分评分(WMD=-0.15,95%CI:-0.63~0.33),Ⅲ部分评分(WMD=0.04,95%CI:-0.24~0.33)和UPDRS Ⅱ+Ⅲ部分总和评分(WMD=0.12,95%CI:-1.25~1.49)上差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。耐受性方面:两种制剂在总的退出人数(RR=1.11,95%CI:0.95~1.31)、因为不良事件退出的人数(RR=1.14,95%CI:0.90~1.45)上,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。安全性方面:两种制剂在总的不良事件的发生风险(RR=1.02,95%CI:0.97~1.07)和严重不良事件(RR=0.96,95%CI:0.73~1.26)的发生风险上,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

对PD患者,长效NEDA与标准NEDA在有效性、耐受性和安全性上相似。

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of long-acting versus standard non-ergot dopamine agonists (NEDAs) in the treatment of Parkinson′s disease by performing a Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Knowledge were searched up to August 15, 2019. The pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) with 95%CI were calculated. Review Manager software version 5.3 and Stata 12.0 were used to analyze the data.

Results

Eleven large-scale RCTs, involving 3280 patients, were included in this Meta-analysis. The results of Meta-analysis showed that compared with the standard NEDAs, long-acting NEDAs exhibited similar improvements in UPDRSⅡ score (WMD=-0.15, 95% CI: -0.63-0.33), UPDRSⅢ score (WMD=0.04, 95% CI: -0.24-0.33) and UPDRSⅡ+ Ⅲ score (WMD=0.12, 95% CI: -1.25-1.49); there was no differences in overall withdrawals (RR=1.11, 95% CI: 0.95-1.31), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.90-1.45) between the two formulations; and there was no differences in the risks of adverse events (RR=1.02, 95% CI: 0.97-1.07) and serious adverse event (RR=0.96, 95% CI: 0.73-1.26).

Conclusion

Our Meta-analysis shows that long-acting NEDAs are similar to standard NEDAs in efficacy, tolerability, and safety in the treatment of Parkinson′s disease.

图1 文献筛选流程图
图2 纳入研究偏倚风险
图3 长效NEDA组和标准NEDA组有效性森林图
表1 纳入研究的基本特征
研究作者及年份 试验设计 Hoehn-Yahr分级 随机比较 患者基本信息 报道指标
Giladi2007[6] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 1~3级 罗替戈汀vs.罗匹尼罗IR:215/228;治疗时间(周):37 平均年龄(岁):61/62;男性比例(%):55/60;PD病程(年):1.4/1.3 UPDRSⅡ+Ⅲ评分,退出人数,不良事件
Poewe2007[7] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 2~3级 罗替戈汀vs.普拉克索IR:204/201;治疗时间(周):23 平均年龄(岁):64/63;男性比例(%):66/56;PD病程(年):8.9/8.4 UPDRSⅡ、Ⅲ评分,关期时间,退出人数,不良事件
Stocchi2008[8] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 1~3级 罗匹尼罗PR vs.罗匹尼罗IR:70/80;治疗时间(周):12 平均年龄(岁):60/60;男性比例(%):62/52;PD病程(年):2.7/2.7 UPDRSⅡ、Ⅲ评分
Rascol2010[9] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 1~3级 普拉克索ER vs.普拉克索IR:104/52;治疗时间(周):9 平均年龄(岁):64/64;男性比例(%):55/60;PD病程(年):3.4/3.2 UPDRSⅡ、Ⅲ评分以及Ⅱ+Ⅲ评分,退出人数,不良事件
Poewe2011[10] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 1~3级 普拉克索ER vs.普拉克索IR:223/213;治疗时间(周):33 平均年龄(岁):61/62;男性比例(%):57/57;PD病程(年):1.0/1.1 UPDRSⅡ、Ⅲ评分以及Ⅱ+Ⅲ评分,退出人数,不良事件
Schapira2011[11] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 2~4级 普拉克索ER vs.普拉克索IR:165/175;治疗时间(周):18 平均年龄(岁):62/62;男性比例(%):56/56;PD病程(年):6.1/6.6 UPDRSⅡ、Ⅲ评分以及Ⅱ+Ⅲ评分,关期时间,退出人数,不良事件
Stocchi2011[12] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 2~4级 罗匹尼罗PR vs.罗匹尼罗IR:177/173;治疗时间(周):24 平均年龄(岁):65/66;男性比例(%):60/54;PD病程(年):7.9/7.5 UPDRSⅡ、Ⅲ评分,关期时间,退出人数,不良事件
Mizuno2012[13] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 2~4级 普拉克索ER vs.普拉克索IR:56/56;治疗时间(周):12 平均年龄(岁):69/66;男性比例(%):38/38;PD病程(年):2.9/3.1 UPDRSⅡ+Ⅲ评分,关期时间,退出人数,不良事件
Mizuno 2014[14] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 2~4级 罗替戈汀vs.罗匹尼罗IR:168/167;治疗时间(周):16 平均年龄(岁):65/67;男性比例(%):37/41;PD病程(年):7.0/6.8 UPDRSⅡ、Ⅲ评分以及Ⅱ+Ⅲ评分,关期时间,退出人数,不良事件
Wang 2014[15] 多中心,随机,双盲,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 2~4级 普拉克索ER vs.普拉克索IR:234/239;治疗时间(周):18 平均年龄(岁):62/62;男性比例(%):66/60;PD病程(年):5.1/4.8 UPDRSⅡ+Ⅲ评分,关期时间,退出人数,不良事件
李志霞2017[16] 单中心,对照研究(Ⅲ期) 1.5~4级 普拉克索ER vs.普拉克索IR:36/44;治疗时间(周):16 平均年龄(岁):68/67;男性比例(%):53/48;PD病程(年):3.0/3.0 UPDRSⅡ、Ⅲ评分以及Ⅱ+Ⅲ评分,关期时间,退出人数,不良事件
图4 长效NEDA组和标准NEDA组耐受性森林图
图5 长效NEDA组和标准NEDA组安全性森林图
图6 不良事件发生率
图7 发表偏移的漏斗图 图a为UPDRS II部分评分;图b为UPDRSIII部分评分;图c为总的退出人数;图d为总的不良事件
1
Cerri S, Mus L, Blandini F. Parkinson′s disease in women and men: what′s the difference? [J]. J Parkinsons Dis, 2019, 9(3): 501-515.
2
Nagy A, Schrag A. Neuropsychiatric aspects of Parkinson′s disease [J].J Neural Transm (Vienna), 2019, 126(7): 889-896.
3
Tran T, Brophy JM, Suissa S, et al. Risks of cardiac valve regurgitation and heart failure associated with ergot-and non-ergot-derived dopamine agonist use in patients with Parkinson′s disease: a systematic review of observational studies [J]. CNS Drugs, 2015, 29(12): 985-998.
4
Kulisevsky J, Oliveira L, Fox SH. Update in therapeutic strategies for Parkinson′s disease [J]. Curr Opin Neurol, 2018, 31(4): 439-447.
5
Takanashi M, Shimo Y, Hatano T, et al. Efficacy and safety of a once-daily extended-release formulation of pramipexole switched from an immediate-release formulation in patients with advanced Parkinson′s disease: results from an open-label study [J]. Drug Res (Stuttg), 2013, 63(12): 639-643.
6
Giladi N, Boroojerdi B, Korczyn AD, et al. Rotigotine transdermal patch in early Parkinson′s disease: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study versus placebo and ropinirole [J]. Mov Disord, 2007, 22(16): 2398-2404.
7
Poewe WH, Rascol O, Quinn N, et al. Efficacy of pramipexole and transdermal rotigotine in advanced Parkinson′s disease: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial [J]. Lancet Neurol, 2007, 6(6): 513-520.
8
Stocchi F, Hersh BP, Scott BL, et al. Ropinirole 24-hour prolonged release and ropinirole immediate release in early Parkinson′s disease: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority crossover study [J]. Curr Med Res Opin, 2008, 24(10): 2883-2895.
9
Rascol O, Barone P, Hauser RA, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of overnight switching from immediate- to once daily extended-release pramipexole in early Parkinson′s disease [J]. Mov Disord, 2010, 25(14): 2326-2332.
10
Poewe W, Rascol O, Barone P, et al. Extended-release pramipexole in early Parkinson disease: a 33-week randomized controlled trial [J]. Neurology, 2011, 77(8): 759-766.
11
Schapira AH, Barone P, Hauser RA, et al. Extended-release pramipexole in advanced Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Neurology, 2011, 77(8): 767-774.
12
Stocchi F, Giorgi L, Hunter B, et al. PREPARED: Comparison of prolonged and immediate release ropinirole in advanced Parkinson′s disease [J]. Mov Disord, 2011, 26(7): 1259-1265.
13
Mizuno Y, Yamamoto M, Kuno S, et al. Efficacy and safety of extended- versus immediate-release pramipexole in Japanese patients with advanced and (L)-dopa-undertreated Parkinson disease: a double-blind, randomized trial [J]. Clin Neuropharmacol, 2012, 35(4): 174-181.
14
Mizuno Y, Nomoto M, Hasegawa K, et al. Rotigotine vs ropinirole in advanced stage Parkinson′s disease: a double-blind study [J]. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 2014, 20(12): 1388-1393.
15
Wang Y, Sun S, Zhu S, et al. The efficacy and safety of pramipexole ER versus IR in Chinese patients with Parkinson′s disease: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study [J]. Transl Neurodegener, 2014, 3: 11.
16
李志霞,马义鹏,梁蔚俊. 普拉克索缓释片治疗原发性帕金森病的临床疗效及安全性观察 [J/CD]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(19): 2263-2267.
17
Latt MD, Lewis S, Zekry O, et al. Factors to consider in the selection of dopamine agonists for older persons with Parkinson′s disease [J].Drugs Aging, 2019, 36(3): 189-202.
18
Ramirez-Zamora A. Parkinson disease: current and emerging treatment strategies [J]. J Clin Psychiatry, 2018, 79(3). pii: PP17030TX1C.
19
Stocchi F. Continuous dopaminergic stimulation and novel formulations of dopamine agonists [J]. J Neurol, 2011, 258(S2): S316-322.
20
Jenner P, Könen-Bergmann M, Schepers C, et al. Pharmacokinetics of a once-daily extended-release formulation of pramipexole in healthy male volunteers: three studies [J]. Clin Ther, 2009, 31(11): 2698-2711.
21
Tompson D, Oliver-Willwong R. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparison of ropinirole 24-hour prolonged release and ropinirole immediate release in patients with Parkinson′s disease [J]. Clin Neuropharmacol, 2009, 32(3): 140-148.
22
Elshoff JP, Braun M, Andreas JO, et al. Steady-state plasma concentration profile of transdermal rotigotine: an integrated analysis of three, open-label, randomized, phaseⅠ multiple dose studies [J]. Clin Ther, 2012, 34(4): 966-978.
23
Schapira AH, Barone P, Hauser RA, et al. Patient-reported convenience of once-daily versus three-times-daily dosing during long-term studies of pramipexole in early and advanced Parkinson′s disease [J]. Eur J Neurol, 2013, 20(1): 50-56.
24
Imbriani P, Schirinzi T, D′Elia A, et al. Continuous dopaminergic stimulation in a patient treated with daytime Levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel and overnight Rotigotine: a case report [J]. Acta Biomed, 2017, 88(2): 190-195.
25
Timpka J, Mundt-Petersen U, Odin P. Continuous dopaminergic stimulation therapy for Parkinson′s disease-recent advances [J]. Curr Opin Neurol, 2016, 29(4): 474-479.
26
Ives NJ, Stowe RL, Marro J, et al. Monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors in early Parkinson′s disease: meta-analysis of 17 randomised trials involving 3525 patients [J]. BMJ, 2004, 329(7466): 593.
27
Talati R, Reinhart K, Baker W, et al. Pharmacologic treatment of advanced Parkinson′s disease: A meta-analysis of COMT inhibitors and MAO-B inhibitors [J]. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 2009, 15(7): 500-505.
28
Jenner P, Könen-Bergmann M, Schepers C, et al. Pharmacokinetics of a once-daily extended-release formulation of pramipexole in healthy male volunteers: three studies [J]. Clin Ther, 2009, 31(11): 2698-2711.
[1] 杨广宇, 王璐, 王宇, 张驰, 曾俊, 江华, 孙明伟. 静脉补充Omega-3多不饱和脂肪酸对脓毒症患者临床结局影响的系统评价与荟萃分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(02): 148-156.
[2] 吕宗凯, 郑杨灿, 杜胜男, 杨映阳. Nd:YAG激光治疗口腔扁平苔藓疗效的Meta分析[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(02): 100-105.
[3] 姬丽娅, 姬昂, 狄政莉, 熊婧, 刘志勤, 薛秀云, 费晓炜, 豆雅楠, 王利. 叶酸通过NLRP3/ASC/Caspase-1信号通路对HT22细胞拟帕金森损伤作用的研究[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2022, 08(04): 196-203.
[4] 金刚, 李英真, 施维, 李博. 帕金森病在病理生理学中的研究进展[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 315-319.
[5] 郑丽华, 钱一菁, 黄崇甄, 周春娜. 山茱萸环烯醚萜苷改善6-OHDA诱导帕金森病细胞模型的损伤[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(06): 324-331.
[6] 陈普建, 张璟, 陈芬, 陈怡伟, 余蓓蓓, 周春英. 双侧丘脑底核交叉电脉冲脑深部电刺激对帕金森病步态障碍的疗效观察[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(05): 298-301.
[7] 李玺琳, 章邱东. 帕金森病患者胃肠功能障碍特点及其风险因素分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(03): 145-149.
[8] 耿磊, 张照婷, 许磊, 黄海, 孙毅, 杨伏猛, 徐凯, 胡春峰. 帕金森病前驱期基底神经节环路磁共振弥散张量成像的应用研究[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 995-1003.
[9] 杨团峰, 孟雪, 王艳香, 卢葭, 孔德生, 赵元立, 刘献增. 男性帕金森病患者球海绵体肌反射初步研究[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 28-32.
[10] 党海波, 乔波, 郭彤彤, 孙畅, 陈祥芳. 背俞穴刺络拔罐疗法治疗寻常痤疮随机对照试验的Meta分析[J]. 中华针灸电子杂志, 2023, 12(02): 74-82.
[11] 谢艾伦, 郑冬燕, 蔡紫薇, 卢仁建, 彭永明, 张贺, 陈家隆. 鱼藤酮通过降低线粒体钙离子单向转运体蛋白表达促进多巴胺能神经元铁死亡[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 71-78.
[12] 郭如烨, 孟黎明, 陈楠, 宋玉莹, 尹海燕, 郭岩. Apelin/APJ系统对帕金森病模型的神经保护作用及机制研究进展[J]. 中华诊断学电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 276-282.
[13] 韩远远, 于紫涵, 杨玲, 程弘禹, 宋春杰. C反应蛋白与白蛋白比值和中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值对老年帕金森病的诊断价值[J]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2023, 10(01): 14-19.
[14] 李赞林, 马建惠, 王志. 腹腔镜袖状胃切除术对胃食管反流病疗效的系统评价与分析[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2023, 10(01): 22-30.
[15] 王国凤, 惠媛, 王凤力, 闫永鑫. 减重手术对肥胖合并甲状腺功能减退症患者甲状腺功能和左甲状腺素替代治疗剂量影响的Meta分析[J]. 中华肥胖与代谢病电子杂志, 2022, 08(04): 263-270.
阅读次数
全文


摘要