Academic discussion of adverse reaction of clinical trials of new traditional Chinese medicines and relevant influencing factors.
- Author:
Wen-ping WANG
;
Ming YU
;
Li WANG
;
Xi-ren JIANG
;
Xiao-bin LI
;
Hua-wei WANG
;
Ying CAO
;
Kai LIU
;
Lu-qi HUANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Clinical Trials as Topic;
Drugs, Chinese Herbal;
adverse effects;
Humans;
Medicine, Chinese Traditional
- From:
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
2015;40(2):346-350
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Data of clinical trial projects involved by clinical trial institutions certified by the State Food and Drug Administration from 2002 to November 2012 were collected to summarize adverse reactions in project summary/statistical reports, analyze the rate of adverse reactions of clinical trials of new traditional Chinese medicines and relevant influencing factors, and increase the awareness of the safety of new traditional Chinese medicines. A total of 73 050 cases in 209 projects of 14 specialties were collected, including 49 689 cases in the new traditional Chinese medicine group and 271 adverse reaction cases, with an incidence rate of adverse reactions at 0.55%. The adverse reaction rate in 3 months < middle long course ≤ 6 months was the highest (1.04%), whereas that in short course ≤ half a month was the lowest (0.48%). The adverse reaction was closely related with the route of administration, 1.28% for topical > 0.63% for injection > 0.50% for oral. In the administration of only the test drug, the adverse reaction rate of patches was the highest (2.68%), whereas that of aerosols and suppositories was lowest (0). In the combined administration of the test drug and the simulation agent, the adverse reaction rate of external test patch + capsule was the highest (3.38%), whereas that of capsule + oral liquid, pills + granules, tablets + oral liquid, tablets + pills, tablet + capsule was the lowest (0). In the administration of only the test drug, the adverse reaction rate was 0.47%; In the combined administration with simulation agent (drug volume increase), the adverse reaction rate was 0.74%. Different doses caused adverse reaction different rates; The adverse reaction rate of drugs with whole-course dose between 1 100-1 200 g was the highest (3.36%), that for whole-course doses of 500-600, 900-1 000, 1 400-1 500, 1 600-1 700, 1 800-1 900 g was the lowest (0). In conclusion, the adverse reaction rate of new traditional Chinese medicines was still up to 0.55%, with the adverse reaction rate between 0.47% and 0.72% over the 11 years, without significant difference in each year. The adverse reaction rate was closely related to course of treatment, approach of administration, dosage form and medication dosage, with no significant correlation with medication dosage during the course of treatment. The adverse reaction rate increased with the rise in trial duration and drug volume. In the administration of only the test drug, the adverse reaction rates of external formulations and injections were higher than that of oral dosage forms. It is suggested to give more attention to the adverse reactions of drugs with long course of treatment and large volumes, injections and external patches in clinical trials of new traditional Chinese medicines.
