Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34211572›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2021

Clinical Study for Safety Evaluation of GXN Tablets Combined with Aspirin in Long-Term Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease.

Mingjie Zi, Ruiqi Li, Fang Lu, Qingna Li, Yang Zhao, Huijuan Jia, Mingyue Sun, Qiaoning Yang, Panbo Qiu, Eryang Wei and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mingjie ZiInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Ruiqi LiGraduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2136-524X
Fang LuInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Qingna LiInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Yang ZhaoInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Huijuan JiaInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Mingyue SunInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Qiaoning YangInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Panbo QiuInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Eryang WeiInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Shuge WangInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Rui LiInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Wantong ZhangInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Weiyi CaoInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9164-8643
Yanling LiInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
Hao XuNational Clinical Research Center for Chinese Medicine Cardiology, Beijing 100091, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3139-4087
Rui GaoInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2455-7615
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNBeijing University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGXN tablets are composed of Danshen and Chuanxiong, with the functions of activating blood circulation, removing blood stasis, invigorating the pulse, and nourishing the heart, which are used for CHD patients with stable exertional angina Grade I or II (according to traditional Chinese medicine, it is a syndrome of heart and blood stasis with chest pain and dark purple lips and tongue). Clinical trials have shown satisfactory effects on coronary heart disease (CHD). 90.6% of Chinese patients with CHD use both Western medicine and Chinese medicine with the latter being thought to promote blood circulation and remove blood stasis. Some researchers doubt that the combination of Chinese medicine increases the risk of bleeding. The main objective of this study is to observe the safety of long-term use of Guanxinning (hereafter referred to as GXN) tablets combined with aspirin.

methodsThe study population is patients with CHD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Randomization was performed for patients with stable CHD who received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for more than 12 months and then switched to the treatment with aspirin alone for 1 month. This study includes a total of 3,595 subjects in 63 hospitals. The experimental group took aspirin orally (100 mg, 1 time/day) + GXN tablets (0-6 months: 4 tablets/time, 3 times/day; 7-12 months, 4 tablets/time, 2 times/day), and the control group received oral aspirin (100 mg, 1 time/day). Major observation indicators are the incidence of bleeding events, adverse events (AEs), and adverse reactions. The primary endpoint indicators are the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and the MACCE composite endpoint.

resultsA total of 31 cases of symptomatic bleeding were found in the two groups, including 21 cases (0.98%) in the experimental group and 10 cases (0.86%) in the control group; the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. There were 29 cases (1.35%) of bleeding not reaching BARC type 1 in the experimental group. No attention was paid to the laboratory indicators in the control group during the trial process, so the bleeding as a laboratory indicator between the two groups was not comparable. For BARC type 3-5 bleeding events, there were 3 cases in the experimental group (0.139%) and 2 cases in the control group (0.172%); the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant and not clinically significant. During the trial period, there were a total of 255 cases of adverse reactions in 208 subjects with an incidence of 6.57% (141/2146) in the experimental group and 5.77% (67/1161) in the control group, and the

conclusionFor CHD patients with heart-blood stasis syndrome, the combination of aspirin and GXN tablets in the experimental group did not increase the incidence of bleeding events, nor did it increase the risk of bleeding of types 3-5 defined by BARC. Except for the increase in gastrointestinal symptoms, there was no increase in other adverse reactions in the experimental group. This trial is registered with Registration no. ChiCTR-IIR-17010688.

Identifiers

PMID34211572
PMCPMC8205569
OpenAlexW3171378360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.