Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025
Efficacy and safety of topical vs. oral calcium channel blockers for chronic anal fissures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Tianshuo, Ye Pengfei, He Xinli, Li Chen, Xi Lanlan, Xi Zuowu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are first-line pharmacotherapy for chronic anal fissures (CAF), but the optimal administration route (oral vs. topical) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared efficacy and safety of oral vs. topical CCBs for CAF.
METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched from inception through February 2025 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Random-effects models were used to pool effect sizes, with sensitivity analyses to assess robustness. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Four RCTs (279 patients) were included. Topical CCBs significantly reduced unhealed fissure risk vs. oral CCBs (OR = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.50-4.69, moderate certainty evidence), with comparable recurrence rates (based on limited data from 3 studies). Initial side effect analysis showed no difference, but sensitivity analysis excluding a high-bias trial revealed fewer adverse events with topical CCBs (OR = 13.16, 95% CI = 5.05-34.3, moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSION: Based on limited evidence, topical CCBs may offer superior healing rates and safety profiles vs. oral formulations for CAF, with similar recurrence rates, though additional high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.
METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched from inception through February 2025 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Random-effects models were used to pool effect sizes, with sensitivity analyses to assess robustness. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Four RCTs (279 patients) were included. Topical CCBs significantly reduced unhealed fissure risk vs. oral CCBs (OR = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.50-4.69, moderate certainty evidence), with comparable recurrence rates (based on limited data from 3 studies). Initial side effect analysis showed no difference, but sensitivity analysis excluding a high-bias trial revealed fewer adverse events with topical CCBs (OR = 13.16, 95% CI = 5.05-34.3, moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSION: Based on limited evidence, topical CCBs may offer superior healing rates and safety profiles vs. oral formulations for CAF, with similar recurrence rates, though additional high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.