Phlebology · 2021
Systematic literature review and network Meta-analysis of sulodexide and other drugs in chronic venous disease.
СтатьяСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Pompilio Giuseppe, Nicolaides Andrew, Kakkos Stavros K, Integlia Davide
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy of sulodexide, including a comparison with venoactive drugs (VAD) (micronized purified flavonoid fraction, MPFF; hydroxy-ethyl-rutosides, HR; calcium dobesilate;Ruscus extract combined with hesperidin methyl chalcone and vitamin C, Ruscus+HMC+VitC; horse chestnut seed extract, HCSE) and pentoxifylline in patients with chronic venous disease.
METHODS: We performed a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Proportion of patients with complete venous ulcer healing was the primary outcome and lower leg volume, foot volume, ankle circumference and symptoms were the secondary outcomes. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was perfomed with random effects models using only RCTs. A meta-analysis of observational studies was performed for sulodexide because no RCT could be included in NMA for symptoms or signs.
RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs and eighteen observational studies were identified. Sulodexide was included only in a single NMA for the proportion of patients with complete ulcer healing and it showed to have the highest probability of being the best treatment (48%) compared with pentoxifylline (37%) and MPFF (16%). MPFF was the most effective treatment in reducing lower leg volume, CIVIQ-20 score and pain VAS scale while calcium dobesilate and Ruscus+HMC+VitC were the most effective in reducing foot volume and ankle circumference respectively.Meta-analyses of observational studies for sulodexide showed that it improves significantly the scoring of pain, feeling of swelling, heaviness and parasthesiae measured by Likert scales.
CONCLUSIONS: Sulodexide is at least as effective as pentoxifylline and more effective than MPFF in improving the rate of ulcer healing in patients with CVD. VADs are effective in improving venous symptoms and signs, as was also shown by sulodexide in the meta-analysis of observational studies. The relative effectiveness of sulodexide and VADs needs to be evaluated by an RCT in order to better inform clinical practice.
METHODS: We performed a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Proportion of patients with complete venous ulcer healing was the primary outcome and lower leg volume, foot volume, ankle circumference and symptoms were the secondary outcomes. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was perfomed with random effects models using only RCTs. A meta-analysis of observational studies was performed for sulodexide because no RCT could be included in NMA for symptoms or signs.
RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs and eighteen observational studies were identified. Sulodexide was included only in a single NMA for the proportion of patients with complete ulcer healing and it showed to have the highest probability of being the best treatment (48%) compared with pentoxifylline (37%) and MPFF (16%). MPFF was the most effective treatment in reducing lower leg volume, CIVIQ-20 score and pain VAS scale while calcium dobesilate and Ruscus+HMC+VitC were the most effective in reducing foot volume and ankle circumference respectively.Meta-analyses of observational studies for sulodexide showed that it improves significantly the scoring of pain, feeling of swelling, heaviness and parasthesiae measured by Likert scales.
CONCLUSIONS: Sulodexide is at least as effective as pentoxifylline and more effective than MPFF in improving the rate of ulcer healing in patients with CVD. VADs are effective in improving venous symptoms and signs, as was also shown by sulodexide in the meta-analysis of observational studies. The relative effectiveness of sulodexide and VADs needs to be evaluated by an RCT in order to better inform clinical practice.