Revista de Gastroenterologa de Mxico.

2012;77(2):82-90

REVISTA DE GASTROENTEROLOGIA DE MEXICO

www.elsevier.es/rgmx

REVIEW ARTICLE

Effect of antispasmodic agents, alone or in combination, in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis
M.A. Martnez-Vzquez, G. Vzquez-Elizondo, J.A. Gonzlez-Gonzlez, R. Gutirrez-Udave, H.J. Maldonado-Garza, F.J. Bosques-Padilla
Gastroenterology Unit, Internal Medicine Department, Dr. Jos E. Gonzlez University Hospital, Monterrey, N.L., Mexico Received 22 October 2011; accepted 28 April 2012 Available online 5 June 2012

KEYWORDS
Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Antispasmodics; Global Improvement; Abdominal Pain; Abdominal Distension; Alverine/Simethicone; Otilonium; Pinaverium/ Simethicone; Mexico

Abstract Introduction: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is characterized by recurrent abdominal pain, bloating, and changes in bowel habit. Aims: To determine the clinical effectiveness of the antispasmodic agents available in Mexico for the treatment of IBS. Methods: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials on antispasmodic agents for IBS treatment. Clinical trials identied from January 1960 to May 2011 were searched for in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Treatment response was evaluated by global improvement of symptoms or abdominal pain, abdominal distention/bloating, and frequency of adverse events. The effect of antispasmodics vs placebo was expressed in OR and 95% CI. Results: Twenty-seven studies were identied, 23 of which fullled inclusion criteria. The studied agents were pinaverium bromide, mebeverine, otilonium, trimebutine, alverine, hyoscine, alverine/simethicone, pinaverium/simethicone, fenoverine, and dicyclomine. A total of 2585 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Global improvement was 1.55 (CI 95%: 1.33 to 1.83). Otilonium and the alverine/simethicone combination produced signicant values in global improvement while the pinaverium/simethicone combination showed improvement in bloating. As for pain, 2394 patients were included with an OR of 1.52 (IC 95%: 1.28 a 1.80), favoring antispasmodics. Conclusions: Antispasmodics were more effective than placebo in IBS, without any signicant adverse events. The addition of simethicone improved the properties of the antispasmodic agents, as seen with the alverine/simethicone and pinaverium/simethicone combinations. 2011 Asociacin Mexicana de Gastroenterologa. Published by Masson Doyma Mxico S.A. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author: Hospital Universitario Dr. Jos E. Gonzlez, Monterrey, N.L., Mexico. Ave. Madero y Gonzalitos S/N Colonia Mitras Centro, Monterrey, Nuevo Len, Mexico. Z.P. 64460. Tel.: +(52) (81) 8333 3664; fax: +(52) (81) 8348 6068. E-mail address: fbosques58@hotmail.com (F.J. Bosques-Padilla).

0375-0906/$ see front matter 2011 Asociacin Mexicana de Gastroenterologa. Published by Masson Doyma Mxico S.A. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rgmx.2012.04.002

Effect of antispasmodic agents in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis

83

PALABRAS CLAVE
Sndrome de Intestino Irritable; Antiespasmdicos; Mejora Global; Dolor Abdominal; Distensin Abdominal; Alverina/Simeticona; Otilonio; Pinaverio/Simeticona; Mxico

Efecto de los antiespasmdicos solos o combinados en el tratamiento del Sndrome de Intestino Irritable: revisin sistemtica y meta-anlisis
Resumen Introduccin: El Sndrome de Intestino Irritable (SII) se caracteriza por distensin y dolor abdominal recurrentes, adems de cambios en el patrn defecatorio. Objetivo: Denir la utilidad clnica de los antiespasmdicos disponibles en Mxico para el tratamiento del SII. Mtodos: Se realiz una revisin sistemtica y meta-anlisis de ensayos clnicos controlados aleatorios de frmacos antiespasmdicos para el tratamiento del SII. Se identicaron los ensayos de enero 1960 a mayo de 2011, para esto se realiz una bsqueda bibliogrca en MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library y en el sitio de registro clinicaltrials.gov. Se tomaron como puntos a evaluar: evaluacin global, mejora de los sntomas, como dolor y distensin abdominal, as como los efectos adversos del tratamiento. El efecto de los frmacos antiespasmdicos vs placebo se expres como RM e IC 95%. Resultados: Veintisiete estudios fueron identicados, de los cuales 23 cumplieron los criterios de inclusin. Los medicamentos estudiados fueron pinaverio, mebeverina, otilonio, trimebutina, alverina, hioscina, alverina/simeticona, pinaverio/simeticona, fenoverina y diciclomina. Un total de 2585 pacientes fueron incluidos en el meta-anlisis. La mejora global fue de 1,55 (IC 95%: 1,33 a 1,83). Otilonio y alverina/simeticona tienen resultados que favorecen la mejora global, la combinacin de pinaverio/simeticona mostr mejora en el alivio de la distensin. Respecto a mejora del dolor, se incluyeron 2.394 con un OR de 1,52 (IC 95%: 1,28 a 1,80) a favor de los antiespasmdicos en general. Conclusiones: Los antiespasmdicos son ms ecaces que el placebo en el SII, sin efectos secundarios signicativos. La adicin de simeticona parece que mejora las propiedades de los antiespasmodicos, tal es el caso de las combinaciones de alverina/simeticona y pinaverio/simeticona. 2011 Asociacin Mexicana de Gastroenterologa. Publicado por Masson Doyma Mxico S.A. Todos los derechos reservados.

Introduction
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a frequent gastrointestinal functional disorder in the western world and Mexico is not an exception.1 It is characterized by recurrent abdominal pain, bloating, and defecation disorders.2,3 The pathophysiology of IBS is not yet fully understood4,5 ; but increased pain sensitivity and altered small bowel and colon motility are main factors contributing to IBS symptoms. When compared with healthy controls, IBS patients demonstrate both visceral hypersensitivity and hyper-reactive motility.6 Antispasmodic agents are believed to reduce pain associated with IBS through the inhibition of contractile pathways in the gut wall and to improve bowel habits by increasing colonic transit time, therefore reducing stool passage frequency. Previous meta-analyses7,8 have proven the usefulness of antispasmodics alone in the treatment of IBS. Nonetheless, antispasmodic availability differs among countries. In the United States, the American College of Gastroenterology review concluded that data were insufcient for making a recommendation as to the effectiveness of the available antispasmodic agents.9 In Europe for example, the utility of the available antispasmodics has been evaluated,10 however, there is no information regarding the effectiveness of those available in Latin America. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of antispasmodic agents, both alone and in combination, for the treatment of IBS, and carried out a meta-analysis of the data obtained. This was

done to determine the clinical effectiveness of the available antispasmodic agents as sole formulations or in combination with simethicone, and to update the current information on IBS treatment in Mexico.

Methods
To determine the antispasmodic agents that are available in Mexico, we reviewed the therapeutic index of the Dictionary of Medical Specialties (Diccionario de Especialidades Mdicas), PLM , Mexico-2011. We focused the search on section A3 of the index that lists all the agents for functional gastrointestinal disorders. The identied antispasmodics were further searched for in a systematic review conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1960 to May 2011 and in abstracts presented at the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and the Mexican Disease Week (Semana Nacional de Gastroenterologa) from 2010-2011. The agents listed in Table 1 were analyzed. Accordingly, the search terms were Irritable Bowel Syndrome and the following antispasmodics: pinaverium bromide, mebeverine, otilonium, trimebutine, alverine, hyoscine, alverine/simethicone, pinaverium bromide/simethicone, alverine/simethicone, fenoverine, and dicyclomine. Two physicians conducted the search, then reviewed the results and resolved the existing discrepancies. Figure 1 explains the selection process for including papers in the meta-analysis. Articles selected

84
Table 1 Clinical trials on antispasmodics that fullled inclusion criteria. Medication Pinaverium bromide 150 mg Pinaverium bromide 150 mg Mebeverine 400 mg Mebeverine 400 mg Mebeverine 400 mg Mebeverine 400 mg Mebeverine 400 mg Mebeverine Not reported Otilonium 320 mg Otilonium 120 mg Otilonium 120 mg Otilonium 120 mg Otilonium 120 mg Otilonium 120 mg Otilonium 120 mg Hyoscine 40 mg Hyoscine 40 mg Hyoscine 30 mg Trimebutine 600 mg Trimebutine 600 mg Trimebutine 600 mg Trimebutine 300 mg Alverine 120 mg Alverine/simethicone 60/300 mg Dicycloverine 160 mg Pinaverium/simethicone 200/600 mg Teatment period (weeks) 2 4 12 4 8 16 4 4 2 15 4 15 12 15 15 4 4 4 24 4 3 (days) 3 (days) 12 (days) 4 2 12

M.A. Martnez-Vzquez et al.

Author and year Levy 197727 Delmont 198128 Connell 196529 Tasman- Jones 197330 Berthelot 198131 Kruis 198632 Secco 198333 Enck 200534 Barbier 198135 Clave 201120 Baldi 199136 Bataglia 199837 Castiglione 199138 Glende 200239 Clave 201121 Ritchie 197940 Nigam 199441 Shafer 199042 Fielding 198043 Moshal 197944 Luttecke 197545 Lutecke 198046 Mitchell 200247 Wittmann 201048 Page 198149 Remes-Troche 201123 , Schmulson 201124

Diagnostic criteria Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Rome II Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Rome II Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Clinical Rome III Clinical Rome III

Jadad 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 2 3 2 3 5 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 ? 5 4 5

The table shows all trials initially considered for analysis. Those with a Jadad score below 3 were subsequently eliminated. Total daily dosages are described.

for review were those in which the authors employed the same inclusion criteria. Afterwards, the studies were reexamined to conrm that they fullled the inclusion criteria. Finally, the meta-analysis was conducted according to predetermined protocols and following the standard recommendations proposed by Sack et al.11 These recommendations consist of a rigorous review which includes the aspects listed in Table 2. When information was lacking, we contacted the authors for its completion.

Inclusion criteria
The following criteria were used for selecting the studies: Randomized controlled trials that included subjects over 16 years of age, a diagnosis of IBS based on accepted clinical criteria (Rome I, II or III), or diagnostic criteria supplemented with specic investigations when needed. Antispasmodic agents versus placebo studies were included when there was a minimum 14-day treatment period. Treatment response was evaluated by the global improvement

Table 2 Recommendations by Sacks for conducting a metaanalysis.

996 potential studies identified in electronic databases. 166 from Pubmed, 6 from Cochrane, 747 from Google and DDW Abstracts, 9 from clinical trials. 453 reports excluded based on title and abstract. 237 studies excluded because of duplication.

215 reports excluded for: comparing active agents, crossover studies, inadequately explained outcome, low Jadad score.

Figure 1

Review process owchart.

Search of the literature List of trials analyzed Treatment assignment Ranges of patient characteristics, diagnoses and treatments Combinability criteria Measurement Control and Measurement of potential bias Statistical analysis Sensitivity analysis Application of results Remaining problems

Effect of antispasmodic agents in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Table 3 Item Was the study described as randomized (this includes words such as randomly, random, and randomization)? Was the method used to generate the sequence of randomization described and appropriate (table of random numbers, computer-generated, etc.)? Was the study described as double blind? Was the method of double blinding described and appropriate (identical placebo, active placebo, dummy, etc.)? Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? Deduct one point if the method used to generate the sequence of randomization was described but was inappropriate (patients were allocated alternately, or according to date of birth, hospital number, etc.)* Deduct one point if the study was described as double blind but the method of blinding was inappropriate (e.g., comparison of tablet vs. injection with no double dummy)*
0=No; 1=Yes; 1=Point deduction*

85

Jadad Score Items. Score 0/1

Standard error

0,0

0,2

0,4

0/1

0,6

0,8 -3

-2

-1

0/1 0/1

Log peto odds ratio

Figure 2 Publication bias assessment funnel plot for trials considered in overall improvement.

0/1 1

Treat (NNT)18 was determined using the formula NNT=1-TBE (1-OR)/TBE divided by TBE (1-TBE) (1-OR).

Results
Included randomized clinical trials
A total of 450 publications were identied from 1960 to 2011. Twenty-seven studies fullled the inclusion criteria and 23 were included in the meta-analysis after the Jadad score was determined. Nine specic agents were tested as monotherapies, plus the alverine/simethicone and pinaverium/simethicone combinations. For the global assessment endpoint, a total of 2585 patients were included; 1297 were allocated to active treatment groups and 1288 to the placebo group. Of these trials, 6 studied mebeverine, 7 otilonium, 3 hyoscine, 2 trimebutine, one alverine plus simethicone (alverine/simethicone), one dicyclomine, 2 pinaverium bromide, and one pinaverium bromide plus simethicone (pinaverium bromide/simethicone). Despite the systematic search for trials with high quality criteria, not all trials reported the effect on all the studied outcomes, i.e. global assessment, pain, abdominal distention/bloating, and adverse events, and therefore a different number of trials was considered for each tested variable. Heterogeneity testing was not signicant (p0.05), allowing the use of the Peto method and xed effects. Publishing bias evaluation was tested using the funnel plot shown in Figures 2 and 3.

of symptoms or abdominal pain (reported by patients or physicians), abdominal distention/bloating, and frequency of adverse events. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale12 (Table 3). This scoring scale evaluates each trial according to the quality of the scientic description of the randomization method. The scale ranges from 0 to 5 points: A score of 2 or less is considered low quality and 3 or higher is considered high quality.12---14 The present review only included studies with a Jadad score of 3 or above.

Meta-analysis Statistical analysis

The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) was used with Excel for Windows 2000 (Microsoft, USA) for calculating the meta-analysis, and the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2 by Biostat, Inc. was also used. Each analysis was run in accordance with standard methodological procedures using the following determinations: a test of heterogeneity15 between active versus control group results. This was considered signicant when p<0.10 and/or the value of I2 >25%. Antispasmodic efcacy was dened according to the Peto method.16 In addition, a funnel plot graph17 was used to evaluate publication bias. Finally, the Number Needed to Patient global assessment Of the 27 trials included for the global assessment analysis, only 18 had sufcient data for consideration. The total sample included 2585 patients, with 1297 allocated to the treatment group. Global assessment with an OR of 1.55 and a 95%CI of 1.33 to 1.83 was conrmed for all antispasmodics (Fig. 4). Based on the Peto method, a signicant difference favoring the alverine/simethicone combination and otilonium was observed. The OR for otilonium was 2.03 (95% CI 1.49-2.77), and was 1,76 (95%CI 1.18-2.61) for the alverine/simethicone combination. The OR for pinaverium bromide was 1.48 (95%CI 0.95-4.63), as shown in Figure 4.

86
Funnel plot of standard error by log odds ratio
0,0 0,2

M.A. Martnez-Vzquez et al. efcacy is borderline with an OR of 1.455 (95%CI 1.17-1.81), there is a consistent trend of antispasmodics as a group to relieve abdominal distention/bloating. The combination pinaverium/simethicone showed an OR of 1.455 (95%CI 1.119.91). Rate of adverse events (safety) The OR for the antispasmodic treatment group was 0.738 (95% CI 0.54-0.98). Results are shown in Figure 7. Previous meta-analyses7,8,19 have shown antispasmodic treatments to be safe. All trials included in the present meta-analysis consistently showed safety, corroborating the safe prole for these agents demonstrated in the most recent reports.20,21 Number Needed to Treat (NNT) The NNT was calculated only for the antispasmodics showing a signicant value of 10 in global assessment (95% CI 6.041.0). The NNT for global improvement was 7 for Otilonium and 8 for Alverine/simethicone and 8 and 11 for pain relief, respectively.

Standard error

0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 -2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

Log odds ratio

Figure 3 Publication bias assessment funnel plot of trials considered for pain relief.

Percentage of patients with abdominal pain improvement A total of 13 trials contained enough data to evaluate pain relief. They included a total of 2394 patients, 1053 allocated to otilonium and 409 to the alverine/simethicone combination treatment; both providing the highest number of patients for a particular therapy. Antispasmodics tested for abdominal pain relief showed an OR of 1,52 (95%CI 1.28 to 1.80), favoring these agents when compared with placebo. Complete results are shown in Figure 5. Percentage of patients with abdominal distention/bloating relief The results for the efcacy analysis of abdominal distention/bloating relief are shown in Figure 6; however, few trials appropriately report this effect. Although

Discussion
Decision-making in medical practice today often requires answers to concrete questions. In 1976 Glass22 proposed a set of different statistical tests in the meta-analysis for quantitative and qualitative analyses based on results from independent trials. Previous studies mention the discrepancy among different trials due to a lack of uniformity in diagnostic criteria. In the present analysis, we decided to remove those trials that had a Jadad score below 3, in other words, of low quality (Table 3). We felt that an analysis of low quality trials could be a signicant source of bias for the interpretation of results.

Group by comparison Averine/s Averine/s Dicycloveine Dicycloveine Hyoscine Hyoscine Hyoscine Hyoscine Mebeverine Mebeverine Mebeverine Mebeverine Mebeverine Mebeverine Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Pinaverium Pinaverium Pinaverium Pinaverium/s Pinaverium/s Trimebutine Trimebutine Trimebutine Overall

Study

Drug

Statistics for each study Upper limit p-ValueTreatment Control 2,614 0,005 125/200 96/198 2,614 0,005 125/200 96/198 21/48 33/49 0,861 0,020 0,861 0,020 21/48 33/49 25/84 3,594 0,039 38/84 14/48 4,599 0,093 22/48 2,016 0,176 106/182 91/178 2,146 0,006 166/314 130 / 310 24/33 7,254 0,170 31/36 1/22 34,859 0,001 11/22 0,543 0,002 8/32 16/24 6/40 12/40 1,213 0,110 7/24 11,454 0,022 15/24 60/143 1,968 0,504 71/154 3/36 12,044 0,033 10/36 2,955 0,003 90/160 66/165 3,227 0,005 58/157 36/160 2,778 0,000 158/353 105/361 17/30 8,492 0,054 24/30 17/25 5,009 0,533 19/25 4,831 0,063 43/55 34/55 2,517 0,567 107/123 103/122 2,517 0,567 107/123 103/122 17/30 1,615 0,306 13/30 4/20 15,182 0,024 11/20 21/50 2,794 0,547 24/50 1,836 0,000 715/1297 582/1288 0,01

Peto odds ratio and 95% CI

Peto Lower odds ratio limit Averine/s 1,761 1,187 Wittman 1,761 1,187 0,388 0,175 Dicycloverine Page 0.388 0,175 1,928 1,034 Hyoscine Nigam 2,021 0,888 Hyoscine Ritchie Hyoscine 1,332 0,880 Shafer 1,561 1,136 2,260 0,704 Mebeverine Berchelot 9,389 2,529 Connel Mebeverine 0,188 0,065 Enck Mebeverine 0,428 0,151 Kruis Mebeverine 3,724 1,211 Tarsmann-J. Mebeverine 1,188 0,717 1,761 1,109 Barbier Otilonium 1,914 1,239 Battalia Otilonium Otilonium 1,994 1,232 Glende 2,035 1,490 2,887 0,982 Pinaveium Delmont 1,475 0,435 Pinaveium Levy 2,152 0,958 1,232 0,603 Remes-Troche Pinaveium/s 1,232 0,603 0,592 0,217 Fielding Trimebutine 4,289 1,212 Trimebutine Moshal 1,273 0,580 1,559 1,323

0,1 Favours placebo

10

10

100

Favours treatment

Figure 4 Efcacy of antispasmdics on IBS global assessment. The vertical bars represent the difference in the response rates between antispasmodics (Treatment) and placebo. The white circles represent the OR and the horizontal lines the 95%CI. Overall response of each type of antispasmodic is represented by the black diamonds. Antispasmodics were effective on the global assessment of IBS symptoms (Overall). Alverine/s: Alverine/simethicone; Pinaverium/s: Pnaverium/simethicone.

Effect of antispasmodic agents in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis

87

Group by Comparison

Study

Drug

Statistics for each study Odds ratio Lower limit 1,00 1,00 0,65 0,65 0,28 0,52 1,21 0,84 1,15 1,22 1,11 1,08 1,43 0,93 0,93 0,57 0,57 0,31 0,67 0,53 1,28 Upper limit p-Value 2,21 2,21 1,51 1,51 2,11 13,66 13,54 3,41 9,52 3,00 2,71 2,63 2,36 8,10 8,10 2,00 2,00 2,46 22,11 3,14 1,80 0,05 0,05 0,97 0,97 0,61 0,24 0,02 0,14 0,03 0,00 0,02 0,02 0,00 0,07 0,07 0,84 0,84 0,79 0,13 0,58 0,00 0,01

Odds ratio and 95% CI

Alverine/s Alverine/s Hyoscine Hyoscine Mebeverine Mebeverine Mebeverine Mebeverine Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Pinaverium Pinaverium Pinaverium/s Pinaverium/s Trimebutine Trimebutine Trimebutine Overall

Wittman Shafer

Alverine/s Hyoscine

Kruis Mebeverine Secco Mebeverine Tarsmann-Jones Mebeverine Barbier Battaglia Clave Glende Delmont Remes-Troche Fielding Moshal Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Pinaverium Pinaverium/s Trimebutine Trimebutine

1,49 1,49 0,99 0,99 0,77 2,67 4,05 1,69 3,31 1,91 1,73 1,68 1,84 2,75 2,75 1,07 1,07 0,87 3,86 1,28 1,52

0,1

10

100

Favours Placebo

Favours Treatment

Figure 5 Efcacy of antispasmodics on pain relief. The vertical bars represent the difference in the response rates between antispasmodics (Treatment) and placebo. The white circles represent the OR and the horizontal lines the 95%CI. Overall response of each type of antispasmodic is represented by the black diamonds. Antispasmodics were effective on abdominal pain (Overall). Specically by type of antispasmodics, only Alverine/s and Otilonium were effective. Alverine/s: Alverine/simethicone; Pinaverium/s: Pnaverium/simethicone.

For global assessment, only otilonium 2,035 (95% CI 1.49-2.77) and the alverine/simethicone combination 1.76 (95%CI 1.18-2.61) showed signicant values. For pain relief, alverine/simethicone 1.48 (95% CI 1.00-2.19) and otilonium 1.83 (95% CI 1.43-2.34) demonstrated significant values. Recently, two abstracts that studied the combination of pinaverium bromide/simethicone came to

interesting conclusions. They reported that pinaverium bromide/simethicone was effective for relieving abdominal pain in patients with active IBS23 and in improving bloating,24 but not visible abdominal distension. These results suggest an effect on visceral perception.24 However, the published abstracts did not contain the data necessary for the current meta-analysis. Therefore, the authors were contacted

Group by Comparison

Autor

Drug Odds ratio

Statistics for each study

Events / Total Total 4/80 16/30 20/110 98/325 153/317 251/642 33/60 168/360 201/420 199/247 199/247 671/1419 0,01 0,1

Odds ratio and 95% CI

Lower Upper limit limit p-Value Treatment Control 0,03 2,00 0,80 1,10 0,72 1,00 0,70 0,53 0,62 1,11 1,11 1,02 3,18 60,57 12,37 2,87 1,74 1,91 5,54 1,21 1,34 4,16 4,16 1,62 0,33 0,01 0,10 0,02 0,62 0,05 0,20 0,30 0,63 0,02 0,02 0,03 1/40 12/15 13/55 58/160 78/157 19/30 80/182 99/212 103/119 103/119 3/40 4/15 7/55 40/165 75/160 14/30 88/178 102/208 96/128 96/128

Mebeverine Mebeverine Mebeverine Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Pinaverium Pinaverium Pinaverium Pinaverium/s Pinaverium/s Overall

Kruis Secco Battaglia Glende Delmont Schafer Schmulson

Mebeverine

0,316 3,138

Mebeverine 11,000 Otilonium Otilonium Pinaverium Pinaverium 1,777 1,119 1,382 1,974 0,802 0,909 Pinaverium/s 2,146 2,146 1,285

136/317 115/325

351/703 320/716

10

100

Favours Placebo

Favours Treatment

Figure 6 Efcacy of antispasmodics on abdominal distention/bloating. The vertical bars represent the difference in the response rates between antispasmodics (Treatment) and placebo. The white circles represent the OR and the horizontal lines the 95%CI. Overall response of each type of antispasmodic is represented by the black diamonds. Antispasmodics were effective on abdominal distension/bloating (Overall). Specically by type of antispasmodics, only the Pinaverium/s (Pinaverium+Simethicone) combination was effective.

88
Group by Subgroup within study Alverine/s Alverine/s Hyoscine Hyoscine Mebeverine Mebeverine Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Pinaverium Pinaverium Pinaverium/s Pinaverium/s Trimebutine Trimebutine Overall Fielding Trimebutine Schmulson Delmont Pinaverium Battaglia Glende Clave Otilonium Otilonium Otilonium Connel Mebeverine Schaffer Hyoscine Study name Drug Peto odds ratio Wittman Alverine/s 1,752 1,752 0,734 0,734 0,643 0,643 0,496 0,502 0,631 0,617 0,567 0,567 Pinaverium/s 0,801 0,801 0,616 0,616 0,738 Statistics for each study Lower limit 0,698 0,698 0,460 0,460 0,102 0,102 0,051 0,052 0,377 0,378 0,130 0,130 0,241 0,241 0,202 0,202 0,554 Tratamiento / Total Placebo 193/205 193/205 136/178 136/178 20/22 20/22 164/165 159/160 43/177 366/502 27/30 27/30 150/155 15/1550 2/303 23/30 915/1122 Total 393/412 393/412 264/360 264/360 39/44 39/44 322/325 314/317 73/356 709/998 52/60 52/60 294/305 294/305 43/60 43/60 1794/2239 0,01 0,1

M.A. Martnez-Vzquez et al.

Peto odds ratio and 95% CI

Upper p-Value Tratamiento limit 4,394 4,394 1,170 1,170 4,054 4,054 4,800 4,857 1,054 1,007 2,482 2,482 2,665 2,665 1,876 1,876 0,982 0,232 0,232 0,193 0,193 0,639 0,639 0,545 0,551 0,079 0,053 0,451 0,451 0,717 0,717 0,394 0,394 0,037 200/207 200/207 128/182 128/182 19/22 19/22 158/160 155/157 30/179 343/496 25/30 2/305 144/150 144/150 20/30 20/30 879/1117

10 Favours Treatment

100

Favours Placebo

Figure 7 Adverse events. There were no differences in the rate of adverse events between antispasmodics and placebo. Antispasmodics shown to be safe.

for the completion of the required information. This is the rst meta-analysis to incorporate the combination of antispasmodics with an anti-foaming agent that may constitute a new therapeutic option. The combination pinaverium/simethicone resulted in an OR of 1.45 (95% CI 1.11-3.91) for bloating. The effect with the addition of simethicone was greater than that of the antispasmodic alone, and was similar to the effect shown by the alverine/simethicone combination. The NNT, calculated from the systematic review or meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, is a valuable aid in making clinical decisions.18 The NNT was recently included in a meta-analysis of medications to treat IBS.25 Results showed a wide range of NNT values; from 4 to 20 for 5-HT3 antagonists and 5HT4 agonists. Other analyses also included antispasmodic medications21 with a wide NNT range; from 3 to 25 depending on the particular antispasmodic tested. We only calculated the NNT for the global assessment and pain relief in those medications with a signicant OR and 95% CI. We found that the antispasmodics with the lowest NNT to achieve global improvement were otilonium and the alverine/simethicone combination; an NNT of 7 for otilonium and 8 for the combination. For pain relief, the NNT was 7 for otilonium and 11 for alverine/simethicone. The NNT from a meta-analysis should be viewed with caution,26 since these data vary according to patient baseline risk and this could be signicantly different among the trials included in the analysis. The weaknesses in this meta-analysis were the variability among the groups of patients across different trials and the insufciency of data such as treatment adherence and the length of time during which each patient took the medications.

bowel disorders is an advance in the methodological quality of antispasmodic trials; however, few of them include the recent diagnostic criteria in their design. Antispasmodic agents are better than placebo for treating IBS, with almost no serious adverse events. The alverine/simethicone combination and otilonium showed a NNT of 7 to 11 with signicant results for global assessment and pain relief. Pinaverium/simethicone also showed effectiveness in relieving bloating and had better results than pinaverium alone. Future clinical investigations should include the combination of antispasmodics and anti-foaming agents to improve the clinical effect of antispasmodics.

Financial disclosure
This study was supported by the Centro Regional para el Estudio de las Enfermedades Digestivas (CREED), Hospital Universitario Dr. Jos E. Gonzalez.

Conict of interest
The authors have no conicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Sergio Lozano Rodriguez, M.D. and Brenda Esqueda M.D. for their help in reviewing the manuscript.

References
1. Schmulson M, Vargas JA, Lpez-Colombo A, et al. Prevalence and clinical characteristics of the IBS subtypes according to the Rome III criteria in patients from a clinical, multicentric trial. A report from the Mexican IBS Working Group. Rev Gastroenterol -38. Mex. 2010;75:4272. Drossman DA, Morris CB, Hu Y, et al. A prospective assessment of bowel habit in irritable bowel syndrome in women: dening an alternator. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:580-9.

Conclusions
The lack of methodological coherence in trials published before 1995 makes it difcult to reach nal conclusions about the efcacy of certain medications. Publication of the Rome II and III trial design recommendations for functional

Effect of antispasmodic agents in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis
3. Thompson WG, Longstreth GF, Drossman DA, et al. Functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain. Gut. 1999;45:43-7. 4. Camilleri M, Prather CM. The irritable bowel syndrome: mechanisms and a practical approach to management. Ann Intern -8. Med. 1992;116:10015. Kellow JE, Azpiroz F, Delvaux M, et al. Applied principles of neurogastroenterology: physiology/motility sensation. Gas-20. troenterology. 2006;130:14126. Drossman DA, Camilleri M, Mayer EA, et al. AGA technical review on irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:2108-31. 7. Lesbros-Pantoickova D, Michetti P, Fried M, et al. Metaanalysis: the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:1253-69. 8. Poynard T, Naveau S, Mory B, et al. Meta-analysis of smooth muscle relaxants in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. -510. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1994;8:4999. Brandt LJ, Bjorkman D, Fennerty B, et al. Systematic review on the management of irritable bowel syndrome in North America. -26. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97 Suppl. 11:S710. Tack J, Fried M, Houghton LA. Systematic review: the efcacy of treatments for irritable bowel syndromea European perspective. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:183-205. 11. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of random-5. ized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:45012. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993:33. 13. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62-73. 14. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int -208. J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:19515. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsis-60. tency in metaanalyses. Br Med J. 2003;327:55716. Demets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: -50. strengths and limitations. Stat Med. 1987;6:34117. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J. 1997;315:629-34. 18. McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Using numerical results from systematic -20. reviews in clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:71219. Ford AC, Talley NJ, Spiegel BM, et al. Effect of bre, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and metaanalysis. Br Med J. 2008;337:313. 20. Clave P, Acalovschi M, Triantallidis JK, et al. Randomised clinical trial: otilonium bromide improves frequency of abdominal pain, severity of distention and time to relapse in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol -42. Ther. 2011;34:43221. Wittmann T, Paradowski L, Ducrotte P, et al. Clinical trial: the efcacy of alverine citrate/simethicone combination on abdominal pain/discomfort in irritable bowel syndromea randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31:615-24. 22. Glass GV. Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher. 1976;5:3-8. 23. Remes-Troche JM, Tamayo JL, Vargas JA, et al. Pinaverium bromide bromide plus simethicone is effective on abdominal pain, in a 12-week randomized placebo-controlled trial in IBS. A report from the Mexican IBS-Working Group. Gastroenterology. 2011;140 Suppl. 1:M1332. 24. Schmulson MJ, Soto-Perez JC, Vargas JA, et al. Can pinaverium bromide bromide plus simethicone improve bloating and objective abdominal distention during a 12-week randomized-clinical

89

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30. 31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

trial in IBS? A report from the Mexican IBSWorking Group. Gastroenterology. 2011;140 Suppl. 1:M1327. Ford AC, Brandt LJ, Young C, et al. Efcacy of 5-HT3 antagonists and 5-HT4 agonists in irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1831-43. Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analysessometimes informative, usually -51. misleading. BMJ. 1999;318:1548Levy C, Charbonnier A, Cachin M. Pinaverium bromide bromide and functional colonic disease (double-blind study. Sem Hop -4. Ther. 1977;53:372Delmont J. The value of adding an antispasmodic musculotropic agent in the treatment of painful constipation in functional colopathies with bran. Double-blind study. Med Chir -70. Dig. 1981;10:365Connell AM. Physiological and clinical assessment of the effect of the musculotropic agent mebeverine on the human colon. Br -51. Med J. 1965;2:848Tasman-Jones C. Mebeverine in patients with the irritable colon syndrome: double blind study. N Z Med J. 1973;77:232-5. Berthelot JCM. Etude controlee en double aveugle DUSPATALIN (Mebeverine) contre placebo, dans le traitement du colon irri-443. table. Gaz Med France. 1981;88:2341Kruis W, Weinzierl M, Schussler P, et al. Comparison of the therapeutic effect of wheat bran, mebeverine and placebo in patients with the irritable bowel syndrome. Digestion. 1986;34:196-201. Secco GB, Di Somma C, Arnulfo G, et al. Controlled clinical study of the action of mebeverine hydrochloride in the treatment of -702. irritable colon. Minerva Med. 1983;74:699Enck P, Klosterhalfen S, Kruis W. Determination of placebo effect in irritable bowel syndrome. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2005;130:1934-7. Barbier P. Double blind controlled trial of a new colonic antispasmodic agent, actylonium bromide. Ars Medici Revue -80. Internationale De Therapie Pratique. 1981;36:1879Baldi F, Longanesi A, Blasi A, et al. Clinical and functional evaluation of the efcacy of otilonium bromide: a multicenter study in Italy. Ital J Gastroenterol. 1991;23:60-3. Battaglia G, Morselli-Labate AM, Camarri E, et al. Otilonium bromide in irritable bowel syndrome: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 15-week study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1998;12:1003-10. Castiglione F, Daniele B, Mazzacca G. Therapeutic strategy for the irritable bowel syndrome. Ital J Gastroenterol. 1991;23:53-5. Glende M, Morselli-Labate AM. Extended analysis of a doubleblind, placebo-controlled, 15-week study with otilonium bromide in irritable bowel syndrome. Eur J Gastroenterol Hep-331. atol. 2002;14:1138Ritchie JA, Truelove SC. Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with lorazepam, hyoscine butylbromide, and ispaghula husk. Br -8. Med J. 1979;1:376Nigam P, Kapoor KK, Rastog CK, et al. Different therapeutic regimens in irritable bowel syndrome. J Assoc Physicians India. 1984;32:1041-4. Shafer VEEK. Behandlung des colon irritabile. Fortschr Med. 1990;25:488-92. Fielding JF. Double blind trial of trimebutine in the irritable -9. bowel syndrome. Ir Med J. 1980;73:377Moshal MG, Herron M. A clinical trial of trimebutine (Mebutin) in spastic colon. J Int Med Res. 1979;7:231-4. Luttecke K. A trial of trimebutine in spastic colon. J Int Med Res. 1978;6:86-8. Luttecke K. A three-part controlled study of trimebutine in the treatment of irritable colon syndrome. Curr Med Res Opin. 1980;6:437-43.

90
47. Mitchell SA, Mee AS, Smith GD, et al. Alverine citrate fails to relieve the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome: results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Aliment -95. Pharmacol Ther. 2002;16:118748. Wittmann T, Paradowski L, Ducrotte P, et al. Clinical trial: the efcacy of alverine citrate/simeticone combination on

M.A. Martnez-Vzquez et al.

abdominal pain/discomfort in irritable bowel syndrome-a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Aliment -24. Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31:61549. Page JG, Dirnberger GM. Treatment of the irritable bowel syndrome with Bentyl (dicyclomine hydrochloride). J Clin Gastroenterol. 1981;3:153-6.