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.
Objectives We conducted a literature review of 33 kinds of Traditional Chinese medicine injections (CMIs) on the national essential medicine list (2004 edition) of China in ADR articles to retrieve basic ADR information and research trends related to CMIs and to provide evidence for the research and development as well as the rational use of CMIs, particularly pharmacovigilance and risk management of CMIs. Methods We electronically searched Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM, Jan. 1978-April 2009), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI, Jan. 1979-April 2009), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP, Jan. 1989-April 2009) and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Database (Jan. 1984 April 2009). We also retrieved the websites of Ministry of Health and State Food and Drug Administration, to collect data about CMIs ADRs reports and regulations from “Newsletter of Adverse Drug Reactions” (Issue 1 to 22). Then we descriptively analyzed all the results on the year published, periodicals and types of study design of included ADR literatures, the major CMIs as well as the regulations about their ADRs. Results (1) There were 5 405 citations found in total and 2160 were removed because of duplication. After screening the title, abstract and full text of the selected papers, 1 010 studies finally met the eligible criteria. (2) The total and cumulative amount of research articles published about CMIs ADRs significantly increases over time. (3) The included 1,010 articles were scattered among 297 periodicals. A total of 55 journals on pharmaceutical medicine, containing 399 articles, accounted for 39.50% of total; 64 journals on traditional Chinese medicine and pharmaceutical medicine, containing only 197 articles, amounted for 19.50% of total. Only 22 periodicals were included on the core journals of the Beijing University List (2008 edition) (8.94% of the total journals in the list), which published 129 articles (12.77% of the total articles published). (4) We categorized the articles included into eight categories based on their content and study methodology. There were: 348 case reports and 254 case series which accounted for 34.46% and 25.15% of the total articles, 119 overviews (11.78%), 116 randomized controlled trials (11.49%), 78 cross-sectional studies (7.72%), 61 ADR literature analyses (6.04%), and 28 non-randomized controlled clinical studies (2.77%). (5) In the three of top ten journals, "Adverse Drug Reactions Journal", "China Medical Herald", and "Chinese Pharmaceuticals" published literature accounted for 5.84%, 3.76% and 2.67% of the total respectively. (6) The reports of ADRs to Shuanghuanglian, Qingkailing and Yuxingcao injections were the most in all reports for CMIs (All the three injections had more than 200 articles, accounting for 41.95% of the total). The Ministry of Health and the State Food and Drug Administration took measures to supervise them. (7) The four kinds of CMIs (Shuanghuanglian, Ciwujia, Yuxingcao, and Yinzhihuang injections) among the top 5 reported ADR literatures were removed from the market or were suspended for sale. The varieties and numbers of reports for CMIs ADRs have relationship with the supervision to them. Conclusions (1) Articles published on CMIs ADRs increased year by year, but overall the research is of low quality and is scattered in a large number of sources. (2) It is very urgent to create a clear standard to grade ADRs of CMIs for the risk management. (3) It is necessary to enforce safety re-evaluation work for CMIs and to promote the clinical rational use.