Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 28, 2012; 18(48): 7371-7377
Published online Dec 28, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i48.7371
Itopride therapy for functional dyspepsia: A meta-analysis
Xuan Huang, Bin Lv, Shuo Zhang, Yi-Hong Fan, Li-Na Meng
Xuan Huang, Bin Lv, Shuo Zhang, Yi-Hong Fan, Li-Na Meng, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310006, Zhejiang Province, China
Author contributions: Lv B, Huang X designed the study, did data interpretation, and wrote the manuscript; Zhang S and Fan YH searched for and extracted the data; Meng LN performed the majority of the data analysis.
Supported by The Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China, No. LY12H29002; and Traditional Chinese Medicine Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China, No. 2011ZB032
Correspondence to: Bin Lv, Professor, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Number 54, Youdian Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou 310006, Zhejiang Province, China. lvbin@medmail.com.cn
Telephone: +86-571-86620281 Fax: +86-571-87073763
Received: July 18, 2012
Revised: October 26, 2012
Accepted: November 6, 2012
Published online: December 28, 2012
Processing time: 195 Days and 20.2 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the therapeutic effects of itopride vs other drugs (placebo, domperidone, mosapride) for functional dyspepsia (FD).

METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of itopride for FD were retrieved from databases. Relevant information was extracted and analyzed, using the relative risk (RR) and weighted mean deviation, as appropriate. A random or fixed effect model was used, based on the heterogeneity of the included articles, and visual inspection of funnel plots was used to evaluate publication bias.

RESULTS: Nine RCTs enrolling 2620 FD cases were included; 1372 cases received itopride treatment and 1248 cases received placebo or other drugs (control groups). Compared with control groups, itopride had superior RR values of 1.11 [95%CI: (1.03, 1.19), P = 0.006], 1.21 [95%CI: (1.03, 1.44), P = 0.02], and 1.24 [95%CI: (1.01, 1.53), P = 0.04] for global patient assessment, postprandial fullness, and early satiety, respectively. For the Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire score, the weighted mean deviation was -1.38 [95%CI: (-1.75, -1.01), P < 0.01]. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in the itopride and control groups. The funnel plots for all indicators showed no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION: Itopride has good efficacy in terms of global patients assessment, postprandial fullness, and early satiety in the treatment of patients with FD and shows a low rate of adverse reactions. Itopride can greatly improve FD syndromes-score.

Keywords: Itopride; Functional dyspepsia; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Prokinetic agents