Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To carry out the meta-analysis on the clinical safety of glycyrrhizic acid and the influencing factors between 18α-glycyrrhizinate (18α-GL) and 18β-glycyrrhizinate (18β-GL). METHODS: Magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate injection was used as the representative preparation of 18α-GL, and compound glycyrrhizin injection was used as the representative preparation of 18β-GL. The clinical control trial of magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate injection and compound glycyrrhizin injection was searched in a computer, which was published from January 2006 to December 2019 on the databases such as PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (CSTJ), and Wanfang Medical Network (Wanfang Data). The data associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were extracted. RevMan5.3 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Finally, 24 studies were included, and 2757 patients were involved, of which the experimental group was mainly treated with magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate, while the control group was mainly treated with compound glycyrrhizin. The results showed that the occurrence of ADRs was significantly lower in the experimental group than that in the control group, and the difference between two groups was statistically significant (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = (0.18, 0.38), P < 0.00001). There was no heterogeneity among the studies (I (2) = 0%, P=1.00). CONCLUSION: Compared with 18β-GL, 18α-GL had a lower incidence of adverse reactions and better clinical safety.