Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of glimepiride for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods We searched the literature from PubMed, Ovid (All EBM Reviews), CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM and other databases. Evaluating the quality of the study according to Cochrane systematic reviews, Meta-analysis was performed for the results of homogeneous studies by The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 5.0, and the heterogeneous data conducted a descriptive qualitative analysis. Results Six RCTs included in the analysis and Meta-analysis was not performed due to the insufficient data (for the median or standard deviation). Six RCTs are multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. The results showed that glimepiride groups to reduce glycosylated hemoglobin, lower fasting and postprandial blood glucose, postprandial plasma insulin enhance the efficacy were statistically significant differences (Plt;0.05) compared to placebo groups. Four studies informed the impact of fasting plasma insulin (FI) and 3 studies showed that the glimepiride groups improving the fasting plasma insulin (FI) were statistically significant differences (Plt;0.05), but 1 study showed the two groups had no significant difference (Pgt;0.05). All studies showed minor adverse reactions of glimepiride. Conclusion Glimepiride can reduce the glycosylated hemoglobin, lower the fasting and postprandial blood glucose, improve fasting and postprandial plasma insulin for type 2 diabetes patients, and have minor adverse reactions. In a word, glimepiride is an effective and security sulfonylureas drug.
Objective While reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) and adverse drug events (AE) following Chinese medicine injection (CMI) is becoming more common, the reporting quality is of concern. Methods A checklist about the reporting quality of ADR/AE was set up, and the ADR/AE reporting of Herba Houttuyniae injection was chosen as an example. Electronic databases Chinese Journal Net (CJN) (1994-2009) and Chinese Science and Technological Journal Net (VIP) (1989-2009) were searched for target literature. Results Based on our search strategy, 210 articles were included, with 175 articles reporting single or several cases of ADR/AE following Herba Houttuyniae injection (type I report). There were 7 reports from regional or national ADR monitoring centers (type II report), and 28 summary reports from a single hospital or medical center (type III report). All 210 papers mentioned ‘adverse effect,’ ‘safety’ or related meaning words in their titles, but 199 articles did not have abstract. Patient demographic characteristics were not fully reported in these articles. In type I articles, only 97 cases (43.11%) mentioned whether patients had or did not have a history of allergies, while 128 cases (56.89%) in Type II papers and Fourteen (50%) type III papers, did not mention allergic history of patients. Only three articles (3/210, 1.43%), all of them type I, mentioned the syndrome type in Chinese medicine. None of the papers gave clear indications of the type and grade of ADR/AE of patients. Most papers did not report details of the CMI procedure, such as the drug company, product serial number, or the drug’s validity period. Data about the occurrence time and management of ADR/AE was also inadequately reported. Conclusion and recommendations The current reporting format of ADR/AE in clinical CMIs is not standardized. Much fundamental information of ADR/AE following CMI is therefore missing. A standard reporting format for ADR should be developed, and should include the following: 1) a title mentioning adverse effects and safety; 2) a structured abstract including adequate information about the patient and the disease treated, the drug used, the specific ADR/AE, physician response to the ADR/AE, and result of management; 3) demographic characteristic of the patients (gender, age, etc.); 4) clinical characteristics of patients (disease, syndrome, etc); 5) allergic history of patients; 6) diagnosis and syndrome based on Chinese medicine theory; 7) detailed information about the Chinese materia medica intervention (the manufacturer of the drug, series number, valid dates, dosage, route of administration, menstruum, dripping speed, etc.); 8) concomitant drug use; 9) time and symptoms of ADR/AE; 10) type and grading of ADR/AE; 11) physiological systems affected by ADR/AE; 12) specific treatment and prognosis for ADR/AE; 13) evidence of the cause and effect of ADR/AE; 14) any other possibility of ADR/AE. Also, a ADR/AE registration system should be established.
Objective To investigate the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of patients with SARS in Xiao Tang Shan Hospital. Methods We developed and distributed Drug Use Handbook and established ADRs monitoring group to guide resaonable drug use. We followed up the process and collected clinical report on ADRs. We retrospectively analyzed the data on ADRs by the classification and grade of ADRs according to WHO and Hospital Information Sysytem (HIS) of Chinese PLA General Hospital. Results We collected 193 (87 males and 106 females) patients with ADRs among 680 SARS patients with incidence rate of ADRs of 28.38%. The ADRs incidence rate was higher in females and elders. Critical SARS patients and SARS patients with diabetes were more susceptible to ADRs. Large dosage and combination of drugs may induce ADRs. Steroids may be a main cause of ADRs. The ADRs incidence rate induced by injection was higher than that induced by all kinds of oral drugs. ADRs mainly happened in hematological, endocrine and digestive systems. Conclusion SARS patients are prescribed many kinds of medications. Large dosage of so many medications may lend to high incidence rate of ADRs. Steroid should be cautiously used in the treatment of SARS.
Objective Qin Kai Ling injection (QKL) is made upon traditional Chinese medicine formulation “An Gong Niu Huang Wan”, is widely used to treatment a lot of diseases. This review aims to assess the safety of QKL. Methods We searched Chinese databases CNKI, VIP from 1987 to April 2009. Two authors extracted the data. Results Totally 1 486 cases were included in this review. We unable to answer the question about the incidence of adverse drug reaction/adverse event (ADR/AE) induced by QKL due to absence of total numbers of producing and market information. It was estimated based on the limited data that the possibility of ADR/AE by using QKL should be low. We found some ADR/AE may induced by incorrect use of QKL, such as used in infants, and some incompatibility drugs were used together with QKL, four patients died in private clinics or patient’s home. We unable to distinguish the ADR or AE based on the poor reported data. Conclusion Current weak evidence shows that QKL has a low risk of ADR/AE. The use of QKL in some ADR/AE cases may be questionable. The reporting of ADR/AE needs to be much improved based on “Recommendation for reporting traditional Chinese medicine adverse drug reaction”.
A total of 109 varieties of Chinese medicine injections have been approved by the State Food and Drug Administration of China, all of which have the potential to induce adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Major ADRs include systemic anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, acute intravascular hemolysis, hepatorenal damage, skin lesion, cardiac damage, respiratory system injury, and gastrointestinal disorders. Contributing factors of ADRs include healthcare workers’ inadequate attention to ADRs of Chinese medicine injections, complex ingredients, allergic uncertainties, and inappropriate drug use in children and the aged. To decrease ADRs resulting from Chinese medicine injections, it is essential to improve the selection of drug indications, delivery of proper dosage regimens, compliance with drug instructions, and selection of solvents for the drugs.
Objective To analyze the clinical characteristics of adverse drug reaction (ADR) caused by 3 kinds of coronavirus disease 2019 drugs, and provide a reference for clinical safe medication. MethodsA total of 33 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to Xiangtan Central Hospital from January 20 to March 5, 2020 were selected as the research objects. The clinical data of patients with ADR during the antiviral process were analyzed retrospectively. The patients’ gender, age, type of medication, combination medication, organs or systems involved, and clinical manifestations were summarized and analyzed. Results A total of 33 patients were enrolled. A total of 21 cases of ADR were reported. The incidence of ADR is higher in patients older than 60 years (80.0%). The most common clinical manifestations are digestive tract symptoms (66.7%). The incidence of ADR is highest in the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir+arbidol+ribavirin (100.0%), followed by the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir+arbidol (85.7%). Abidol and ribavirin each caused 1 case of severe ADR. Conclusion For patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the combination of two or more antiviral drugs should be avoided, and pharmaceutical monitoring should be strengthened for elderly, severe/critical and allergic patients.
In phase II clinical trial of Compound Prescription of Huangyaozi (Dioscorea bulbifera L.), 7 cases out of 37 developed (18.92%) impairment of liver function. As a result, the ethic committee required researchers to report all data of safety of the drug and have all subjects rechecked about their liver function so as to provided reasonable evidence for the scientifical evaluation of the relationship between the drug and the adverse event and the succedent suspending of the clinical trial.
Using Chinese Materia Medica (CM) as injections is an innovation that is proving effective in extensive clinical use in Mainland China. However, recent reports have focused on adverse reactions, ignoring the considerable successes of these preparations. In order to achieve balance in the media and in the minds of the public, we suggest the first step is to clarify the concepts of and differences between adverse drug reactions (ADR) and adverse events (AE) for all concerned—the public, medical practitioners, government officials, and lawmakers. Second, the State Food and Drug Administration should raise the requirements for Chinese Medicine Injection (CMI) registration and license approval and emphasize the importance of evidence-based CMI development and evidence-based CMI license approval. Thirdly, drug companies and institutions should reinforce basic research about the quality control of herbs and CMI-drug interactions. Fourth, the Government should clarify the legal responsibilities for CMI approval agencies, CMI developers, medical doctors, and patients. Fifth, the medical association and Government should enhance training for health care professionals concerning the usage of CMIs. And finally sixth, State Food and Drug Administration should monitor the content and quality of the directions for use of CMI.
Objectives To systematically evaluate the clinical characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) caused by Shuanghuanglian Injection (SHLI) and to provide reference for post-market evaluation and clinical application of SHLI. Methods We searched electronic databases such as the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1979.1-2009.9), the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full-text Database (VIP, 1989.1-2009.9), and the Chinese Biomedical Disc (CBMdisc, 1978.1-2009.9). ADR cases were analyzed according to occurrences categorized. Available data was assessed using the Chi-square test including relative ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Different medicine combinations and comparisons between SHL powder injection and SHL injection were calculated using the statistical software Stata 9.1. Results (1) A total of 452 articles were included with a total of 2 799 ADR cases reported. Case reports were the main design type of included literature, which accounted for 84.51%. According to 31165 cases of SHLI treatment and 1 013 corresponding ADRs, the incidence of SHLI ADR was calculated as 3.25%. (2) The ratio of male to female in the reported ADR cases was 1.13?1. (3) Allergy to Penicillin, which accounted for 13.38% of the total cases, was at the top for past allergic history, followed by sulfonamides and asthma (2.68%). (4) In terms of disease treated respiratory disease accounted for 91.75% of all cases of SHLI ADRs, followed by digestive diseases (5.17%), and urinary diseases (1.11%). (5) Penicillins were the most common combination choice with SHLI, and such combination showed higher ADR risk than SHLI used alone [RR=3.14, 95%CI (2.58, 3.81)]. (6) Multiple systems/organs were involved in SHLI ADRs, and were ranked downwards according to proportion as: skin, digestive system, general reactions, respiratory system, nervous system, cardiovascular system, local reactions, urinary system, hematologic system and others. (7) According to the WHO ADR Classification Criteria, ADR cases were divided into four grades. There were 6.36%, 5.48%, 45.62%, and 2.12% cases of Grade Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ and Ⅳ , respectively. And the prognoses of the rest 52.42% cases were reported unclearly. (8) All cases of death were caused by allergic shock, except for one, which was caused by myocardial infarction induced by pain at the injection site. The fastest ADR case occurred 1 minute after being injected. (9) There was a remarkable difference (Plt;0.05) in the rate of ADR caused by SHLI in power form (2.25%) and as a solution (4.14%). Conclusion The clinical manifestations of ADRs caused by SHLI mainly include skin allergic reactions and gastrointestinal reactions. There is an increased risk of ADR induced by combined uses of SHLI and other drugs, especially antibiotics. Compared to the solution, the powder has lower ADR occurrence and higher safety with statistical significance. We propose strengthening management and surveillance on SHLI from manufacturing to application, and improving the level of the risk management for post-market drugs.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of metformin for metabolic syndrome. Methods We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, China Biological Medicine Database, VIP, and CMAC up to the year of 2007. Handsearches and additional searches were also conducted. Randomized controlled trials of metformin for metabolic syndrome were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from eligible studies and evaluated the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed for the results of homogeneous studies by The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 4.2.9. Results Six trials involving a total of 2442 patients with metabolic syndrome were included. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the apparent heterogeneity. Metformin, compared with placebo, exhibited more favorable effects in reducing the proportion of patients with metabolic syndrome (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.60), the proportion of patients with low HDL-c (RR 1.61, 95%CI 1.16 to 2.23), wide waist circumference (RR 1.64, 95%CI 1.06 to 2.55), and high FPG (RR 1.55, 95%CI 1.17 to 2.05). Metformin was also more effective in improving FPG and insulin sensitivity. The addition of metformin to atenolol plus nitrendipine was superior to atenolol plus nitrendipine alone in reducing the proportion of patients with high TG (RR 5.57, 95%CI 1.56 to 19.84), abdominal obesity (RR 14.47, 95%CI 3.34 to 62.61), and IGT (RR 16.51, 95%CI 6.06 to 45.0). Compared with low-fat diet therapy, metformin was superior in improving FPG, 2-hour postload plasma glucose, and insulin sensitivity. No differences were observed between metformin and acarbose in the reduction of TG and FPG, but metformin was less effective than acarbose in improving 2-hour postload plasma glucose. No adverse drug reactions were reported. Conclusion Metformin has beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of high FPG, IGT, and abdominal obesity. It also proved beneficial in reducing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and increasing insulin sensitivity. The therapeutic effects of metformin on blood pressure, obesity, and lipid profile are uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of metformin in the treatment of metabolic syndrome due to low methodological quality, small sample size, and limited number of trials. More high quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials are required.