• Qing Li, Xin-Yao Jin, Xia Zhou, Wen-Tai Pang, Ke-Yi Wang, Nan Li, and Wen-Ke Zheng.
• Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tianjin 301617, China.
• Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2021 Feb 1; 46 (3): 712-721.

AbstractThis study aimed to comprehensively analyze and compare the differences of different clinical study types currently published in the safety evaluation of Xuebijing Injection. Six databases, namely the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang database, were electronically retrieved to collect all types of studies on the safety of Xuebijing Injection, including randomized controlled trials, case-controlled studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and centralized monitoring studies of clinical safety(hospital), in order to comprehensively and objectively evaluate the safety of Xuebijing Injection, and analyze the differences of different research results. A total of 211 literatures were included, involving a total of 46 384 patients treated with Xuebijing Injection, and 423 adverse reactions(ADRs) occurred. They included 191 randomized controlled trials, 3 cohort studies, 15 systematic reviews, and 2 centralized monitoring studies of clinical safety(hospital), and the incidence of adverse reactions was 2.54%(common), 2.31%(common), 0.95%(occasionally), and 0.50%(occasionally). More than half of the 423 cases of ADRs occurred in skin and adnexal system(151 cases) and gastrointestinal system(65 cases), including such manifestations as rash, skin itching, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea. The degree of ADRs was mild. Randomized controlled trials showed that the incidence of ADR was the highest when Xuebijing Injection was used for malignant tumor and multiple organ failure. And the systematic evaluation showed that the incidence of ADR was the highest when Xuebijing Injection was used for spontaneous peritonitis of liver cirrhosis. In conclusion, different study types could lead to significant differences in the results of drug safety evaluation. Sample size, study type, and quality control are the main factors for biased results. Due to large sample size and high-quality, centralized monitoring studies become the better clinical safety evaluation model of drugs at present, and full life cycle management could more objectively reflect drug safety and guide clinical rational drug use.

12 keywords...

hide…