Frontiers in medicine · 2026
Clinical analysis of drug treatment trends for coronary heart disease in China.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Xu, Lou Junyi, Li Xiaoyu, Li Shuang, Gu Junxian, Zhang Die, Luo Zining, Cao Junjie, Xie Jiebin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of mortality in China, yet the alignment between pharmaceutical research investment and clinical therapeutic priorities remains uncharacterized.
METHODS: We conducted a dual-stream analysis. Stream A (Bibliometric): systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science yielded 12,032 records; after deduplication and screening, 3,339 publications met inclusion criteria. Stream B (Clinical Trials): searches of CDCTP and ChiCTR identified 1,433 interventional drug trials after deduplication and quality control. Drugs were standardized to the WHO ATC classification; TCM ingredients to TCMID 2.0.
RESULTS: CHD research output expanded exponentially: Publications increased from 41 (2006) to 353 (2020; 760% increase), with 265 in 2025 (546% increase from baseline). Strikingly, 76.4% of trials were bioequivalence studies, with chemical pharmaceuticals dominating (78.6%) over traditional Chinese medicine (21.4%); calcium channel blockers comprised the largest drug category (45.9%. Notably, Critical gaps emerged: genomic research concentrated on inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, IL6, TNF; 25.8% of gene associations) while lipid metabolism targets were underrepresented (12.4%) despite statin therapeutic dominance; publication venue prestige demonstrated inverse volume-impact correlation (19.7% Q1 vs. 33.6% Q3 journals). Thus, quantitative expansion (compound annual growth rate (CAGR) 10.4%) coexisted with qualitative ceiling effects and target-drug mismatches between research investment and clinical guideline priorities.
CONCLUSION: China's CHD research landscape is policy-driven rather than clinically aligned: generic bioequivalence validation dominates (76.4%) while innovative therapeutic development and high-impact dissemination lag. Strategic rebalancing toward lipid metabolism genomic discovery, Phase II-III novel drug trials, and Q1 journal publication is imperative to bridge the research-clinical practice gap and align with global cardiovascular science standards.
METHODS: We conducted a dual-stream analysis. Stream A (Bibliometric): systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science yielded 12,032 records; after deduplication and screening, 3,339 publications met inclusion criteria. Stream B (Clinical Trials): searches of CDCTP and ChiCTR identified 1,433 interventional drug trials after deduplication and quality control. Drugs were standardized to the WHO ATC classification; TCM ingredients to TCMID 2.0.
RESULTS: CHD research output expanded exponentially: Publications increased from 41 (2006) to 353 (2020; 760% increase), with 265 in 2025 (546% increase from baseline). Strikingly, 76.4% of trials were bioequivalence studies, with chemical pharmaceuticals dominating (78.6%) over traditional Chinese medicine (21.4%); calcium channel blockers comprised the largest drug category (45.9%. Notably, Critical gaps emerged: genomic research concentrated on inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, IL6, TNF; 25.8% of gene associations) while lipid metabolism targets were underrepresented (12.4%) despite statin therapeutic dominance; publication venue prestige demonstrated inverse volume-impact correlation (19.7% Q1 vs. 33.6% Q3 journals). Thus, quantitative expansion (compound annual growth rate (CAGR) 10.4%) coexisted with qualitative ceiling effects and target-drug mismatches between research investment and clinical guideline priorities.
CONCLUSION: China's CHD research landscape is policy-driven rather than clinically aligned: generic bioequivalence validation dominates (76.4%) while innovative therapeutic development and high-impact dissemination lag. Strategic rebalancing toward lipid metabolism genomic discovery, Phase II-III novel drug trials, and Q1 journal publication is imperative to bridge the research-clinical practice gap and align with global cardiovascular science standards.