Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie · 2002
A randomised clinical trial comparing the efficacy of a herbal preparation STW 5 with the prokinetic drug cisapride in patients with dysmotility type of functional dyspepsia.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Rösch W, Vinson B, Sassin I
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the efficacy of the herbal preparation STW 5 (Iberogast ((R))) and the research preparation STW 5-II with cisapride for treatment of patients with dysmotility type of functional dyspepsia.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a diagnostic work-up and 7 days wash-out, 186 patients with dysmotility type of functional dyspepsia were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy study to one of three treatment arms (STW 5/cisapride-placebo; STW 5-II/cisapride-placebo; cisapride/STW-placebo) for four weeks. Main outcome variable was the improvement of a dyspepsia-specific gastrointestinal symptom score. Symptoms were assessed three times during treatment and after six months follow-up. Hypothesis of non-inferiority was tested. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and tolerability assessments, recurrences and safety parameters.
RESULTS: 137 patients were included in the confirmatory analysis. The lower limit of the confidence interval for both herbal preparations was above the pre-defined lower limit of the equivalence border and hypothesis of non-inferiority was proven for STW 5 and STW 5-II. There were no statistical significant differences for the secondary endpoints.
CONCLUSION: In this study STW 5 and the research preparation STW 5-II showed equivalent efficacy to cisapride for the treatment of patients with functional dyspepsia of dysmotility type.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a diagnostic work-up and 7 days wash-out, 186 patients with dysmotility type of functional dyspepsia were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy study to one of three treatment arms (STW 5/cisapride-placebo; STW 5-II/cisapride-placebo; cisapride/STW-placebo) for four weeks. Main outcome variable was the improvement of a dyspepsia-specific gastrointestinal symptom score. Symptoms were assessed three times during treatment and after six months follow-up. Hypothesis of non-inferiority was tested. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and tolerability assessments, recurrences and safety parameters.
RESULTS: 137 patients were included in the confirmatory analysis. The lower limit of the confidence interval for both herbal preparations was above the pre-defined lower limit of the equivalence border and hypothesis of non-inferiority was proven for STW 5 and STW 5-II. There were no statistical significant differences for the secondary endpoints.
CONCLUSION: In this study STW 5 and the research preparation STW 5-II showed equivalent efficacy to cisapride for the treatment of patients with functional dyspepsia of dysmotility type.