ABSTRACT
Clinical comprehensive evaluation was conducted in "6+1" dimensions(safety, effectiveness, economy, innovation, suitability, accessibility, and characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine) to reflect the advantages and characteristics of Diemai-ling~® Kudiezi Injection in the treatment of cerebral infarction. This study adopted a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods. Based on the methodologies of evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, clinical medicine, evidence-based pharmacy, pharmacoeconomics, mathematical statistics, and health technology assessment(HTA), experts gave weight to the criterion layer and index layer, and multi-criteria decision analysis(MCDA) model and CSC v2.0 were used for calculations to evaluate the clinical value of Diemailing~® Kudiezi Injection. The existing evidence showed that active monitoring and a number of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) have been carried out after the listing of Diemailing~® Kudiezi Injection. Since the total incidence of adverse reactions is 0.099% and the incidence of adverse drug reactions(ADR) is rare, the safety evaluation is grade A. The evidence value of effectiveness demonstrated that Diemailing~® Kudiezi Injection combined with conventional western medicine improves the total effective rate of neurological deficit score and quality of daily life in the acute stage of cerebral infarction, which is superior to that in the conventional western medicine treatment group, and the level of evidence is high. Therefore, its efficacy is assessed as grade A. According to the results of economic research, when Diemailing~® Kudiezi Injection combined with conventional western medicine treatment is compared with conventional western medicine treatment, the Diemailing~® Kudiezi Injection group has a greater incremental effect, but the cost is affordable. Given the overall quality evaluation results of economic report is clear, it is evaluated as grade B. The innovation is grade A. The drug is favorable for clinical operation by medical staff and can be accepted by patients due to easy usage without special technical and management requirements. Since the drug exhibits good suitability for clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and patients, it is evaluated as grade B. Considering its moderate price among similar drugs and good affordability and availability, it is evaluated as grade B. Diemailing~® Kudiezi Injection can evidently improve the clinical symptoms and neurological deficits of fire toxin syndrome of acute cerebral infarction, and this medicine belongs to ethnic medicine. Large-sample active monitoring research has been conducted with rich experience in human use. Therefore, the characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine are evaluated as grade A. The comprehensive clinical evaluation of Diemailing~® Kudiezi Injection is class A. We suggest that it can be directly transformed into relevant policy results of basic clinical medication management by procedure.
Subject(s)
Humans , Cerebral Infarction/drug therapy , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Injections , Medicine, Chinese TraditionalABSTRACT
Expert consensus statement on Diemailing Kudiezi Injection in clinical practice was approved on April 17,2019 by the Standardadization Office of the Chinese Association of Chinese Medicine. This project,which started in November 2017,has been developed and completed in accordance with the standard developing procedure. This paper will give a detailed introduction to the compilation process about the consensus. The aim is to enable readers to understand the background,purpose and basis of this consensus in a timely manner. Readers can learn about diffferent stages of develping process,including project management system,drafting,consulting,expert consensus,as well as current problems and shortcomings. Such an editorial explanation is just a dynamic follow-up of the whole consensus-making process. It also plays a good supervisory role in the whole consensus-making. It could be a guarantee for the quality of the consensus. There is no doubts that the editorial explanation is an important auxiliary document in the process of consensus-making. It is the extension and supplement of consensus content and a basis for fully understanding the technical content of this consensus. Therefore it is an indispensable document in the process of consensus-making.
Subject(s)
Consensus , Drugs, Chinese Herbal , Therapeutic Uses , Injections , Medicine, Chinese Traditional , Reference StandardsABSTRACT
This study was aimed to obtain the incidence of adverse drug reaction (ADR) of Diemailing Kudiezi injection, explore its characteristics, related risk factors and application in real world. A prospective single cohort study was conducted from 25 hospitals (including Chinese medicine hospitals and Western medicine hospitals) for 4 years. 30 233 consecutive inpatients using Diemailing Kudiezi injection were observed. Their general information was analyzed by using statistic frequency description. Association rules were used to analyze the correlation between comorbidities or drug combinations; the influential factors for ADRs were initially screened by using cross contingency method and Chi-square test, and then Group LASSAO method was used for further analysis. 54 patients with adverse drug events and 30 patients with ADRs were reported among 30 233 patients, with a total ADR incidence of 0.099%[95%CI (0.06%, 0.13%)]. There were 27 patients identified as the "general" ADR, one patients with "severe" ADR (anaphylactic shock) and two patients with new ADRs. ADR occurred most in 30 min after using Diemailing Kudiezi injection, in a total of 16 patients. The most ADRs were palpitation, vomiting, chills, pruritus and rash, 6 times for each symptom. Diemailing Kudiezi injection was well tolerated in the general population. The overall incidence of adverse reactions was rare, with high safety. However, the real incidence of ADRs may be underestimated in this study, and the blood samples were not obtained for the patients, so further mechanism studies shall be conducted.
ABSTRACT
This is a study based on hospital intensive monitoring to explore medication use of Diemailing Kudiezi injection(one Chinese herbal medicine injection) in real word in the patients with cerebral infarction. The active monitoring model was adopted and hospital intensive monitoring on safety of 7 189 cases of patients with cerebral infarction was conducted to obtain the drug use information of Diemailing injection. The results were analyzed by using statistical description and association rule method. The statistical description and association rule analysis were conducted based on patients' basic demographic characteristics, use of Diemailing injection and combined use of drugs. Sixty-two percent(4 437/7 189) of the patients were from traditional Chinese medicine hospitals as compared with 39%(2 752/7 189) from western medicine hospitals; 84%(6 003/7 189) of the patients were from tertiary hospitals as compared with 16%(1 186/7 189) from second-class hospitals. The hospitals were mostly located in north China. Drug related indicators such as a single dripping speed, stash time after allocating transfusion, duration of injection, and injecting room temperature were not noted in instruction manual. It was also found that there were off label use in the practice, for instance, non-intravenous infusion, >14 d treatment course, use of non-designated solvent, and a single dose>40 mL or<10 mL. Analysis of association rules showed that only Edaravone among the most frequent combined drugs was listed in the current guideline in China, and the other three most frequent combined drugs deproteinized calf blood extractive injection, Cinepazide Maleate injection and Alprostadil injection were used with little evidence. Diemailing＋Aspirin＋Alprostadil was the most common combined use in our study, but the recommended clopidogrel＋Aspirin was not found in this study. The drug use situation of Diemailing injection in the real world was obtained by data analysis on large size samples, providing basic reference information for clinicians and researchers. However, efficacy was not concerned in this study, so efficacy-related information could not be explained.