Objective To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of digestive enzyme for dyspepsia.
Methods Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CBM, VIP and CNKI were searched from establishment dates of databases to June 2010 to identify the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of digestive enzyme for dyspepsia. Then studies were identified according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and their quality was evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0 software.
Results Eight studies involving 1 092 patients were included, 3 of which were Grade B while the rest were Grade C. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the total efficacy rate of oryz-aspergillus enzyme and pancreatin tablet, compound digestive enzymes capsule, and compound azintamide enteric-coated tablet for dyspepsia were better than either placebo or blank intervention, with the results as (OR=49.70, 95%CI 17.16 to 143.96), (OR=7.71, 95%CI 3.88 to 15.33) and (OR=16.27, 95%CI 6.85 to 38.66), respectively. The efficacy for treating loss of appetite, abdominal distension, abdominal pain, diarrhea and belching was superior to either placebo or blank intervention. Oryz-aspergillus enzyme and pancreatin tablet was inferior to compound digestive enzyme capsule in treating dyspepsia following cholecystectomy. No significant difference was observed in treating dyspepsia following chronic pancreatitis between compound azintamide enteric-coated tablet and compound digestive enzymes capsule. Drug-related adverse reactions as well as economic evaluation were not reported in included studies.
Conclusion Digestive enzyme is effective for dyspepsia caused by various diseases. The OR of digestive enzyme versus the placebo/blank-control group shows that oryz-aspergillus enzyme and pancreatin tablet is better than other digestive enzyme drugs.
Citation: TANG Huilin,LUAN Rong,ZHAI Suodi. Digestive Enzyme for Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2012, 12(6): 714-721. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20120116 Copy