Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for bone fracture using evidence-based methods based on the burden of disease. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) 17 guidelines were included, six of which were evidence-based or based on expert consensus. We found that for fracture, global guidelines recommended surgical treatment and analgesics, while domestic guidelines recommended Chinese patent drugs. (2) A result of one RCT (low quality) indicated that Shang Ke Jie Gu Pian (name of a Chinese patent drug) shortened the clinical recovery time of fracture (MD=–4.2, 95%CI –5.25 to –3.14). A result of one RCT indicated that Shang Ke Jiu Ji Pian had a higher total clinical efficiency compared with San Qi Pian (name of a Chinese patent drug) (RR=1.28, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.47). A result of one RCT (low quality) indicated that Shang Ke Jiu Ji Pian (name of a Chinese patent drug) had a better effect than Shenyang Hong Yao Pian (name of a Chinese patent drug) in promoting the growth of osteotylus (RR=1.48, 95%CI 1.27 to 1.73) and also it had a higher clinical recovery rate (RR=1.62, 95%CI 1.37 to 1.9) compared to Shenyang Hong Yao Pian. A result of one RCT (moderate quality) indicated that Shang Ke Jiu Ji Pian was slightly better than Die Da Wan (name of Chinese patent drug) in regard to the recovery score of fracture (MD=0.25, 95%CI 0.026 to 0.47). A result of one RCT (low quality) indicated that compared to fracture reduction alone Shang Ke Jiu Ji Pian efficiently relieved pain (MD=–25.9, 95% –32.6 to –19.19) and shortened pain time (MD=–38.6, 95% –41.44 to –35.77). A result of one quasi-RCT (low quality) indicated that Shang Ke Jiu Ji Pian had a higher efficiency in relieving pain than benorylate (RR=1.13, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.23). A result of one RCT (low quality) indicated that Shang Ke Jiu Ji Pian had a higher efficiency than Shenyang Hong Yao Pian in relieving pain and swelling (RR=2.4, 95%CI 1.88 to 3.02). A result of one RCT (moderate quality) indicated that Shang Ke Jiu Ji Pian was superior to Die Da Wan in relieving pain and swelling (MD=–0.4, 95%CI –0.60 to –0.2). A result of two RCT (n=198) indicated that Shang Ke Jie Gu Pian caused no adverse reaction. With good applicability, Shang Ke Jie Gu Pian (taken with warm water or rice wine) cost 7.47 yuan daily. Conclusion (1) We offer a b recommendation for Shang Ke Jie Gu Pian and Jie Gu Qi Li Pian used in the treatment of adult fracture. (2) We should carry out more large-sample and controlled trials and improve outcome indicator in order to produce high-quality local evidence.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for the treatment of cerebral circulation insufficiency by means of evidence-based approaches based on the burden of disease for township health centers located in the eastern, central and western regions of China. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) Five clinical guidelines on transient ischaemic attack/ischaemic stroke were included, all of which were evidence-based clinical guidelines. (2) In total, there were 13 medicines (of five classes) listed in these guidelines. (3) We offer a b recommendation for aspirin as essential medicine for cerebral circulation insufficiency and a weak recommendation for warfarin, clopidogrel, heparin, paracetamol, insulin, normal saline and glucose/dextrose. We made a recommendation against tPA, GPⅡb/Ⅲa and antibiotics according to WHOEML (2011), NEML (2009), CNF (2010), other guidelines and the quantity and quality of evidence. (4) Recommended medicines have been marketed in China and their prices were affordable except Clopidogrel’s. (5) Some results of domestic low-quality studies indicated that recommend medicines were safe and effective, which had significant differences compared to high-quality evidence from foreign studies. Further studies were needed to be confirmed. Conclusion (1) We offer a b recommendation for aspirin and a weak recommendation for warfarin, clopidogrel, heparin, paracetamol, insulin, normal saline and glucose/dextrose. We make a recommendation against tPA, GPⅡb/Ⅲa and antibiotics. (2) There is lack of high-quality evidence from relevant domestic studies, especially on long-term safety and pharmacoeconomic evidence. (3) We propose that more studies should be carried out on the safety, special efficacy and pharmacoeconomic of Chinese medicine, Chinese medicinals and medicine with special efficacy. Besides, we also compare recommended medicine with those of the same class and construct Level 1 to 2 systems of preventing and treating cerebral vascular diseases.
Objective?To evaluate and select essential antihypertensive medicine using evidence-based approaches based on the burden of disease for township health centers located in eastern, central and western regions of China. Methods?By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results?(1) Five clinical guidelines on hypertension were included, two of which were evidence-based. (2) Totally there were nine classes and 70 antihypertensive medicines listed in the guidelines. (3) According to WHOEML (2011), NEML (2009), CNF (2010), other guidelines, and the quantity and quality of evidence, we offered a b recommendation for nifedipine, verapamil and enalapril and a weak recommendation for hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, spironolactone, propranolol, metoprolol and amlodipine. We made a recommendation against furosemide and timolol due to the lack of evidence from guidelines. (4) Nine recommended medicines have been marketed with the dosage forms and specifications corresponding to guidelines in China. The prices of metoprolol, amlodipine and enalapril were higher than those of other six (daily cost: metoprolol 3.80 to 7.60 yuan, amlodipine 2.16 to 4.32 yuan, and enalapril 0.86 to 6.88 yuan). As a whole, the prices of recommended antihypertensive medicine were affordable. (5) Results of domestic studies indicated that three bly-recommended medicines (including nifedipine, verapamil and enalapril) were safe, effective, economical and applicable. Conclusion?(1) We offer a b recommendation for nifedipine, verapamil and enalapril as antihypertensive medicine and a weak recommendation for hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, spironolactone, propranolol, metoprolol and amlodipine. (2) There is lack of high-quality evidence from relevant domestic studies, especially on long-term safety and pharmacoeconomic evidence. (3) We propose that more studies should be carried out on the safety, efficacy and pharmacoeconomics of six medicines for which we make a weak recommendation to produce high-quality local evidence.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for acute and chronic gastritis using evidence-based approaches based on the burden of disease for township health centers located in eastern, central and western regions of China. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) Five guidelines for acute gastritis and seven guidelines for chronic gastritis were included. The recommended included omeprazole, ranitidine and domperidone. (2) A result of three CCTs (n=315, low quality) indicated that omeprazole was superior to famotidine and ranitidine in alleviating symptoms of chronic gastritis such as pain or discomfort in the upper abdomen, regurgitation, a burning sensation in the heart, distention and fullness in the upper abdomen (71.2% vs. 47.3%, 94.4% vs. 84.3%, Plt;0.05). A result of one RCT (n=100, low quality) and two CCTs (n=213, low quality) indicated that in HP eradication rates, omeprazole triple therapy and the control intervention had no significant difference (OR=1.09, 95%CI 0.44 to 2.70, Pgt;0.05). A result of one RCT (n=100, low quality) indicated that omeprazole caused no adverse reaction. A result of five CCTs (n=528, low quality) indicated that adverse reaction of omeprazole included poor appetite (two cases), nausea and vomiting (four cases), headache or vertigo (one case) and increased transaminase (one case). Omeprazole cost eight yuan (tablet) or four yuan (capsule) daily. (3) HP eradication rates of ranitidine bismuth citrate was higher than the control group (OR=2.05, 95%CI 1.29 to 3.25, P=0.002). A result of 15 RCTs (n=3 638, high quality) indicated adverse reaction of ranitidine bismuth citrate mainly included symptoms in the digestive system. A result of one RCT (n=100, low quality) indicated ranitidine bismuth citrate and omeprazole triple therapy had no significant difference (Pgt;0.05) and ranitidine bismuth citrate caused no adverse reaction. Ranitidine cost 0.36 yuan (tablet), 0.40 yuan (capsule) or 2.7 to 5.4 yuan (injection) daily. (4) A result of two CCTs (n=133, low quality) indicated that compared with the control intervention, domperidone was more efficient without adverse reaction in improving indigestion, promoting gastric emptying effect, and alleviating pain and distention in the upper abdomen, belching and regurgitation. Domperidone cost 1 to 1.3 yuan daily. (5) All kinds of recommended medicines are listed and legalized in China Pharmacopoeia (2010) and CNF (2010). (6) In clinical setting, above-recommended medicines should be applied strictly according to the CNF (2010) and the National Clinical Prescription Guidelines for Essential Medicine. Conclusion For acute and chronic gastritis, indigestion and HP eradication: (1) We offer a b recommendation for omeprazole (immediate release tablet/capsule for oral use, 10 mg/tablet) which should be cautiously used in children, elderly people, and women during pregnancy or lactation. (2) We offer a b recommendation for ranitidine (immediate release tablet/capsule for oral use, 150 mg/tablet) which should be cautiously used in patients with severe insufficiency in the liver or kidney, women in the pregnancy or lactation, and children under eight years of age.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) using evidence-based methods based on the burden of disease. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) Nine guidelines were included (eight foreign guidelines, one domestic guideline; seven based on evidence, two based on expert consensus). (2) A result of one domestic RCT (n=72, high quality) indicated that tiotropium could significantly improve pulmonary function of severe COPD patient complicated with respiratory failure and increase their quality of life (SGRQ score: MD=–10.8%, 95%CI –12.2% to –9.4%). A result of one RCT (n=156, moderate quality) with 3-month follow-up indicated that tiotropium could significantly improve the proportion of measured value to expected value of FEV1 in patients with mild and moderate COPD in stationary phase (MD=10.3%, 95%CI 8.1% to 12.5%). A result of two RCTs (n=160, low quality) indicated that compound ipratropium bromide had efficiencies of 84.2% to 87.5% for moderate and severe COPD. A result of one RCT (n=60, moderate quality) indicated that salmeterol/fluticasone (inhalation) was superior to placebo for improving mild and moderate COPD in stationary phase. A result of one RCT (n=725, moderate quality) indicated that tiotropium combined with salmeterol/fluticasone for COPD in stationary phase was superior to tiotropium alone. A result of one RCT (n=110, low quality) indicated that nebulized budesonide inhalation had an efficiency of 86.8% for acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) and an incidence of 7.9% as to adverse reaction that mainly included laryngo-pharyngeal irritation. (3) Imipenem, meropenem, cefoperazone/ sulbactam and ceftazidime were effective for COPD with low drug resistance rates in treating COPD caused by non-ICU pathogens (less than 8%). Conclusion (1) We offer a b recommendation for tiotropium, ipratropium, salbutamol, formoterol, salmeterol and theophylline used in the treatment of COPD in stationary and exacerbation phases, a b recommendation for streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza vaccines in preventing the deterioration of COPD, a b recommendation for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) used in the treatment of COPD in stationary phase and a b recommendation for corticosteroids (for oral use) for AECOPD. (2) We offer a b recommendation for cefoperazone/sulbactam, imipenem and meropenem used in the treatment of moderate and severe AECOPD. (3) We offer a weak recommendation for ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, lavofloxacin, moxifloxacin, amoxicillin amp; clavulanate potassium, amoxicillin, azithromycin, clarithromycin and doxycycline as first-line and second-line antibiotics for mild and moderate AECOPD, and a weak recommendation for compound sulfamethoxazole, cefatriaxone, cefotaxime and cefuroxime used in the treatment of severe and extremely severe COPD, mucolytic agents used in the treatment of stable COPD with difficult expectoration. (4) We make a recommendation against antibiotics, expectorants and corticosteroids (for oral use) as routine use in stationary phase of COPD.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for urolithiasis using evidence-based methods based on the burden of disease. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) Three evidence-based guidelines were included. Based on WHOEML (2011), NEML (2009), CNF (2010) and the quantity and quality of evidence, we made a recommendation for diclofenac sodium, nifedipine, allopurinol and ibuprofen used in symptomatic treatment of urolithiasis. (3) Results of domestic studies (including four RCTs, n=566; two observational studies, n=96) indicated that calculus-removed rates of diclofenac sodium, nifedipine and allopurinol were 91.5%, 86.4%~93.3% and 86.4% respectively with significant differences. Diclofenac sodium daily cost 7.00 to 8.57 yuan, nifedipine 1.48 to 4.44 yuan, and allopurinol 0.24 to 0.82 yuan. Ibuprofen had a total efficiency of 94.5% with a significant difference for alleviating renal colic, which cost 0.11 yuan daily. Four recommended medicines with safety, clinical efficacy, high economical efficiency and applicability had been marketed with specifications and dosage forms corresponding to guidelines in China. Conclusion For urolithiasis: (1) We offer a b recommendation for diclofenac sodium (capsule/tablet, 50 mg×24, or 25 mg×24) which is contradicted in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding and in pregnant women or women with planned pregnancy. (2) We offer a weak recommendation for nifedipine (tablet/capsule, 10 mg×100 or 10 mg×60) which is contraindicated in dialysis-receiving patients with malignant hypertension and should be cautiously used in patients with irreversible renal failure. (3) We offer a weak recommend allopurinol (tablet, 100 mg×100) which is contraindicated in patients with allergic reaction, severe insufficiency of the liver or kidney, or significant lack of blood cells. (4) We offer a b recommendation for ibuprofen (tablet, 20 mg×20) which is contraindicated in patients with allergic reaction to aspirin.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) using evidence-based methods based on the burden of disease. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) Five guidelines were included (four foreign guidelines, one domestic guideline; three based on evidence, two based on expert consensus). (2) Medicines recommended at least twice by the National Essential Medicine List (NEML, 2009 version) and Chinese National Formulary (CNF) contained: ipratropium bromide (four times), amoxicillin amp; clavulanate potassium (three times), and corticosteroid (three times), cefuroxime (twice), ciprofloxacin (twice), levofloxacin (twice), salbutamol (twice) and dextromethorphan (twice). (3) As for domestic study evidence, a result of one RCT indicated that amoxicillin amp; clavulanate potassium had efficiencies of 92.3% to 94.7% (n=77, low quality). A result of three RCTs (n=275, low quality) indicated that cefuroxime had efficiencies of 67.6% to 90% and an incidence of 5% as to adverse reaction that mainly included skin rashes, diarrhea, etc. A result of two RCTs (n=120, low quality) indicated that ciprofloxacin had efficiencies of 78.3% to 86.6%, bacterial clearance rates of 72.7% to 86.5% and the incidences of 8.7% to 16.2% as to adverse reaction that mainly included gastrointestinal reaction, skin rashes, etc. A result of seven RCTs (n=523, low quality) indicated that levofloxacin had efficiencies of 72.5% to 94.5%, bacterial clearance rates of 82.1% to 95.8% and the incidences of 5% to 7.5% as to adverse reaction. A result of two RCTs (n=239, low quality) indicated that salbutamol had efficiencies of 85.4% to 96.7%. A result of one RCT (n=95, low quality) indicated that ipratropium bromide had efficiencies of 98%. A result of five RCTs (n=466, low quality) indicated that the combined use of budesonide and bronchodilators had efficiencies of 93.4% to 97.8%. Conclusion (1) We offer a b recommendation for cefuroxime, amoxicillin amp; clavulanate potassium, ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin used in the treatment of AECB. (2) We offer a b recommendation for glucocorticoid (budesonide, aerosol) and anticholinergic bronchodilator (ipratropium bromide) and a weak recommendation for short-acting β2-agonist bronchodilator (salbutamol) and antitussive agent (dextromethorphan) for alleviating symptoms due to AECB. (3) We make a recommendation against mucolytic agents and theophylline as routine use. (4) More large-scale, multi-center, double-blinded RCTs are needed in clinical and pharmacoeconomic studies on AECB and outcome indicator should be improved in order to produce high-quality local evidence.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for children with fever and adult gastrointestinal flu caused by common cold using evidence-based approaches based on the burden of disease for township health centers located in eastern, central and western regions of China. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) 12 guidelines were included, 11 of which were evidence-based or based on expert consensus. We offered a recommendation for medicines used in the treatment including analgesics and antipyretics, decongestants, antihistamines, cough-relieving drug, phlegm-removing drug and drug for gastrointestinal symptoms. (2) A result of four RCTs (very low quality) indicated that in the treatment of children with cold, ibuprofen suspension had an antipyretic effect similar to paracetamol solution (for oral use) with a pooled result of 6-hour efficiency in relieving fever (RR 1.48, 95%CI 0.66 to 3.30, P=0.34). The major adverse effects of ibuprofen suspension included gastrointestinal reaction and profuse sweats (RR=1.23, 95%CI 0.72 to 2.11, P=0.45). With good applicability, ibuprofen suspension (for oral use with no need to be supervised) cost 1.93 yuan daily. (3) A result of three RCTs (low quality) indicated that after given for 30 minutes and one hour, paracetamol solution (suppository) was fairly superior to ibuprofen suspension in lowering the high temperature caused by fever (given for 30 min: MD= –0.16°C, 95%CI –0.21 to –0.11, Plt;0.01; given for one hour: MD= –0.19°C, 95%CI –0.28 to 0.10, Plt;0.01). As to adverse reaction, paracetamol solution (suppository) mainly included anal irritation, skin rashes and profuse sweats, which had a comparative result of incidence with ibuprofen suspension (RR=1.84, 95%CI 0.62 to 5.44, P=0.27). For children with fever, paracetamol solution (suppository) cost 0.90 yuan daily. With good applicability, paracetamol solution (suppository) was administered via the anus. Conclusion (1) We offer a b recommendation for ibuprofen suspension (2 g/100 mL) or acetaminophen (0.1 g/suppository) as symptomatic treatment used in children with fever, pain and discomfort caused by common cold, and for Huo Xiang Zheng Qi Jiao Nang (0.3 g/ capsule) used in adults with gastrointestinal flu. We also offer a weak recommendation for acetylcysteine (injection, 300 mg/mL, 10 mL/ampoule) used in patients with paracetamol poisoning. (2) In order to produce high-quality local evidence, we proposed that large-scale, well-designed, high-quality clinical and pharmacoeconomic studies on ibuprofen suspension and acetaminophen suppository in the treatment of children with fever, pain and discomfort caused by common cold should be further carried out. Besides, we proposed that large-scale, well-designed, high-quality clinical and pharmacoeconomic studies on Chinese patent drugs of Huo Xiang Zheng Qi used in chidren and Huo Xiang Zheng Qi Jiao Nang used in adults should further carried out. Moreover, we suggest that epidemiological investigation as well as clinical and pharmacoeconomic studies of acetylcysteine injection for paracetamol poisoning should be carried out and the instructions of acetylcysteine injection should be added in the guidelines of essential medicine in China. Finally, further studies on evidence of oxymetazoline, dextromethorphan and other Chinese patent drugs with the effect of relieving cough and treating cold should be carried out.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for acute cholecystitis using evidence-based methods based on the burden of disease. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) Three guidelines were included (two foreign guidelines, one domestic guideline; two based on evidence, one based on expert consensus). (2) Results of two RCTs (n=200, low quality) and two CCTs (n=230, low quality) indicated efficiencies of ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, ciprofloxacin combined with metronidazole, and ceftazidime combined with metronidazole were 92.5%, 92.6%, 92.5% and 91.3%. A result of three RCTs (n=661, low quality) indicated that lavofloxacin had efficiencies of 82.2% to 95.8% which were 84.4% to 94.7% when combined with metronidazole. A result of three RCTs (n=553, low quality) indicated that for acute cholecystitis, ceftriaxone had an efficiency of 90.0%, cefuroxime 73.7% and cefoperazone/sulbactam 95.6% (Efficiency: ceftriaxone 93.3%, cefuroxime 82.5% and cefoperazone/sulbactam 92.3%, when combined with metronidazole). A result of one RCT (n=72, low quality) indicated that cephazoline had an efficiency of 70.9% with bacteria resistance rates of 70% for G+ and 87% for G. Conclusion (1) We offer a b recommendation for piperacillin/tazobactam and cefoperazone/sulbactam used in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (mild, moderate and severe). We offer a b recommendation for meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin and metronidazole as alternatives for severe acute cholecystitis. (2) We offer a weak recommendation for ceftazidime and cefepime used in the treatment of severe acute cholecystitis and a weak recommendation for cefotiam, ampicillin/sulbactam and cefuroxime used in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (mild and moderate). We offer a weak recommendation for lavofloxacin and ciprofloxacin used in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (mild and severe) and a weak recommendation for ceftriaxone used in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (mild, moderate and severe). (3) We make a recommendation against cephazoline as routine use. (4) More large-scale, multi-center, double-blinded RCTs are needed in clinical and pharmacoeconomic studies of acute cholecystitis and outcome indicator should be improved in order to produce high-quality local evidence.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for the treatment of coronary heart disease by means of evidence-based approaches based on the burden of disease for township health centers located in eastern, central and western regions of China. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) 11 clinical guidelines on coronary heart disease were included, three of which are evidence-based guidelines. (2) Totally, those guidelines contained 61 medicines (of 13 classes). (3) According to WHOEML (2011), NEML (2009), CNF (2010), other guidelines and the quantity and quality of evidence, we made a b recommendation for nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate, metoprolol, nifedipine, verapamil, enalapril and aspirin as essential medicine for coronary heart disease. We made a weak recommendation for amlodipine, clopidogrel, heparin, propranolol, simvastatin and streptokinase. (4) 13 recommended medicines have been marketed in China and their prices were affordable. (5) Results of domestic low-quality studies indicated that nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate, metoprolol, aspirin and heparin were effective for coronary heart disease. We didn’t find systematic reviews or pharmacoeconomic studies on the recommended medicines in Chinese literature databases. Conclusion For coronary heart disease: (1) We offer a b recommendation for nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate, metoprolol, nifedipine, verapamil, enalapril and aspirin and a weak recommendation for propranolol, amlodipine, clopidogrel, heparin, simvastatin and streptokinase. (2) There is lack of high-quality evidence from relevant domestic studies, especially on pharmacoeconomic evaluation. (3) We propose that more studies should be carried out on clinical guideline of coronary heart disease and pharmacoeconomic comparison should be also made between recommended medicine and medicine of the same class.