Objective:To investigate the occurrence and characteristics of adverse reactions of Xuesaitong preparations, mine its coagulation disorders/bleeding risk signals, and provide references for its safe and rational use in clinic. Methods:The reports of adverse drug reactions (ADR) caused by Xuesaitong preparations from August 2003 to August 2023 in the database of Shandong Provincial Center of Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring were collected. ADR were counted and classified using the system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities 26.1. Three methods, namely the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and the comprehensive standard method of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of the United Kingdom, were used to detect the risk signals of coagulation disorders/bleeding in using Xuesaitong preparations. Results:A total of 17 015 reports of ADR related to Xuesaitong preparations were collected, involving 9 dosage forms, in which injection dosage form accounted for 95.50% (16 250/17 015). The median age of the patients was 62 years, 44.87% of the cases were 45-64 years and 42.90% of them were 65 years and above. There were 2 217 cases of severe ADR reports, accounting for 13.03% (2 217/17 015). A total of 18 SOCs were involved, the top 3 were skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases, systemic diseases and drug administration site reactions, and neurological diseases. A total of 54 PTs were not recorded in the instructions, among which 34 were severe. Ninety-three cases about coagulation disorders/bleeding (98 times) were reported, the top 3 PTs were hematuria [24.49% (24/98)], purpura [11.22% (11/98)], and epistaxis [10.20% (10/98)]. Seven dosage forms of Xuesaitong preparations were involved, the top 3 were Xuesaitong for injection (freeze-dried) (48 cases, accounting for 51.61%), Xuesaitong injection (29 cases, accounting for 31.18%), and Xuesaitong tablets (8 cases, accounting for 8.60%). Among 93 reports of coagulation disorders/bleeding, there were 23 severe cases, accounting for 24.73%, which was significantly higher than that in other reports (12.97%), and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.001). Sixteen PTs about coagulation disorders/bleeding were not recorded in the instructions, among which 9 were severe. The proportion of cases with onset time longer than 7 days in ADRs about coagulation disorders/bleeding was higher than that in other ADRs [22.58%(21/93) vs. 7.43%(1 258/16 922), P<0.001]. The risk signals of coagulation disorders/bleeding were mined for Xuesaitong for injection (freeze-dried), Xuesaitong injection, Xuesaitong tablets, and Xuesaitong capsules, and the risk signal density of Xuesaitong tablets was the strongest. Conclusions:The ADRs of Xuesaitong preparations involve multiple systems and organs. Among them, Xuesaitong for injection (freeze-dried), Xuesaitong injection, Xuesaitong tablets, and Xuesaitong capsules have a strong association with coagulation disorders/bleeding risks, and the proportion of severe cases is relatively high. However, the relevant risk warning information is not included in the drug instructions of some manufacturers. Medication monitoring needs to be strengthened and timely intervention should be carried out in clinic.

Objective:To investigate the occurrence and characteristics of adverse reactions of Xuesaitong preparations, mine its coagulation disorders/bleeding risk signals, and provide references for its safe and rational use in clinic. Methods:The reports of adverse drug reactions (ADR) caused by Xuesaitong preparations from August 2003 to August 2023 in the database of Shandong Provincial Center of Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring were collected. ADR were counted and classified using the system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities 26.1. Three methods, namely the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and the comprehensive standard method of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of the United Kingdom, were used to detect the risk signals of coagulation disorders/bleeding in using Xuesaitong preparations. Results:A total of 17 015 reports of ADR related to Xuesaitong preparations were collected, involving 9 dosage forms, in which injection dosage form accounted for 95.50% (16 250/17 015). The median age of the patients was 62 years, 44.87% of the cases were 45-64 years and 42.90% of them were 65 years and above. There were 2 217 cases of severe ADR reports, accounting for 13.03% (2 217/17 015). A total of 18 SOCs were involved, the top 3 were skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases, systemic diseases and drug administration site reactions, and neurological diseases. A total of 54 PTs were not recorded in the instructions, among which 34 were severe. Ninety-three cases about coagulation disorders/bleeding (98 times) were reported, the top 3 PTs were hematuria [24.49% (24/98)], purpura [11.22% (11/98)], and epistaxis [10.20% (10/98)]. Seven dosage forms of Xuesaitong preparations were involved, the top 3 were Xuesaitong for injection (freeze-dried) (48 cases, accounting for 51.61%), Xuesaitong injection (29 cases, accounting for 31.18%), and Xuesaitong tablets (8 cases, accounting for 8.60%). Among 93 reports of coagulation disorders/bleeding, there were 23 severe cases, accounting for 24.73%, which was significantly higher than that in other reports (12.97%), and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.001). Sixteen PTs about coagulation disorders/bleeding were not recorded in the instructions, among which 9 were severe. The proportion of cases with onset time longer than 7 days in ADRs about coagulation disorders/bleeding was higher than that in other ADRs [22.58%(21/93) vs. 7.43%(1 258/16 922), P<0.001]. The risk signals of coagulation disorders/bleeding were mined for Xuesaitong for injection (freeze-dried), Xuesaitong injection, Xuesaitong tablets, and Xuesaitong capsules, and the risk signal density of Xuesaitong tablets was the strongest. Conclusions:The ADRs of Xuesaitong preparations involve multiple systems and organs. Among them, Xuesaitong for injection (freeze-dried), Xuesaitong injection, Xuesaitong tablets, and Xuesaitong capsules have a strong association with coagulation disorders/bleeding risks, and the proportion of severe cases is relatively high. However, the relevant risk warning information is not included in the drug instructions of some manufacturers. Medication monitoring needs to be strengthened and timely intervention should be carried out in clinic.

Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods:This study was a retrospective cohort study. The subjects were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were hospitalized in 13 3A-level general hospitals in Shandong Province from September 2018 to December 2021. According to the type of basal insulin used, the patients were divided into insulin degludec group and insulin glargine U100 group. The basic information and laboratory test results in patients in the 2 groups were collected, the differences of fasting blood glucose level and incidence of hypoglycemia between the 2 groups were compared. The patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the 2 groups were selected and their blood glucose fluctuations were compared.Results:A total of 1 152 patients were entered in the study, including 552 patients in the insulin degludec group and 600 patients in the insulin glargine U100 group. The difference in the basic conditions in patients in the 2 groups was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). After treatment, the fasting blood glucose levels in patients in the 2 groups were lower than those before treatment, with statistically significant differences [10.2 (8.8, 12.5) mmol/L vs. 7.5 (6.6, 8.7) mmol/L, Z=-19.443, P<0.001; 10.0 (8.6, 11.7) mmol/L vs. 7.8 (6.6, 9.0) mmol/L, Z=-15.449, P<0.001], but the difference in fasting blood glucose levels between the 2 groups after treatment was not statistically significant ( Z=-1.427, P>0.05). The incidence of hypoglycemia in the insulin degludec group was lower than that in the insulin glargine U100 group [1.09% (6/552) vs. 2.83% (17/600), Z=4.481, P=0.032]. The intraday blood glucose standard deviation, maximum blood glucose fluctuation range, postprandial blood glucose fluctuation range, and average blood glucose fluctuation range in patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the insulin degludec group were significantly lower than those in the insulin glargine U100 group [(1.7±0.6) mmol/L vs. (2.4±1.0) mmol/L, (4.5±1.6) mmol/L vs. (6.7±2.9) mmol/L, (1.8±1.0) mmol/L vs. (3.3±1.2) mmol/L, (2.9±1.3) mmol/L vs. (4.6±2.1) mmol/L; all P<0.001]. Conclusion:The efficacy of insulin degludec in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus is equivalent to that of insulin glargine U100, but the risk of hypoglycemia and blood glucose fluctuation is lower.

Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods:This study was a retrospective cohort study. The subjects were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were hospitalized in 13 3A-level general hospitals in Shandong Province from September 2018 to December 2021. According to the type of basal insulin used, the patients were divided into insulin degludec group and insulin glargine U100 group. The basic information and laboratory test results in patients in the 2 groups were collected, the differences of fasting blood glucose level and incidence of hypoglycemia between the 2 groups were compared. The patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the 2 groups were selected and their blood glucose fluctuations were compared.Results:A total of 1 152 patients were entered in the study, including 552 patients in the insulin degludec group and 600 patients in the insulin glargine U100 group. The difference in the basic conditions in patients in the 2 groups was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). After treatment, the fasting blood glucose levels in patients in the 2 groups were lower than those before treatment, with statistically significant differences [10.2 (8.8, 12.5) mmol/L vs. 7.5 (6.6, 8.7) mmol/L, Z=-19.443, P<0.001; 10.0 (8.6, 11.7) mmol/L vs. 7.8 (6.6, 9.0) mmol/L, Z=-15.449, P<0.001], but the difference in fasting blood glucose levels between the 2 groups after treatment was not statistically significant ( Z=-1.427, P>0.05). The incidence of hypoglycemia in the insulin degludec group was lower than that in the insulin glargine U100 group [1.09% (6/552) vs. 2.83% (17/600), Z=4.481, P=0.032]. The intraday blood glucose standard deviation, maximum blood glucose fluctuation range, postprandial blood glucose fluctuation range, and average blood glucose fluctuation range in patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the insulin degludec group were significantly lower than those in the insulin glargine U100 group [(1.7±0.6) mmol/L vs. (2.4±1.0) mmol/L, (4.5±1.6) mmol/L vs. (6.7±2.9) mmol/L, (1.8±1.0) mmol/L vs. (3.3±1.2) mmol/L, (2.9±1.3) mmol/L vs. (4.6±2.1) mmol/L; all P<0.001]. Conclusion:The efficacy of insulin degludec in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus is equivalent to that of insulin glargine U100, but the risk of hypoglycemia and blood glucose fluctuation is lower.