Comprehensive Evaluation of Clinical Application of Balanced Compound Amino Acid Injection

BACKGROUND: To provide a reference for hospital drug selection and rational clinical drug selection based on the evaluation of the safety, nutritional quality, and economy of 27 manufacturers of five varieties (18AA, 18AA-I, 18AA-II, 18AA-IV, 18AA-V) of balanced compound amino acids for injection and (18AA-II(original research)). METHODS: The safety of compound amino acids for injection was evaluated by comparing the antioxidant sulfite contents. Based on the amino acid scoring standard mode and the whole egg protein mode as proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) in 1973, we compared the formula. The first limiting amino acid content and the comprehensive quality of the total essential amino acid (EAA) contents of the six formulations were studied. The price/content ratio was used to evaluate their economy. RESULTS: Similar variety produced by different manufacturers have the same formula and contents of balanced compound amino acids for injection. Safety: 18AA-II(original research) and 18AA-II had the lowest sulfite content. Compared with 18AA-II(original research), the sulfite content of 18AA-I, 18AA, 18AA-V, and 18AA-IV were higher (10 times, 16.67 times, 16.67 times, and 33.33 times, respectively). The lower the sulfite content, the safer the product. Nutritional quality: The proportions of amino acids in the five varieties of compound amino acid injection were all suitable. The order of the first limiting amino acids for the formulations was 18AA-II(original research) = 18AA-II>18AA >18AA-I = 18AA-IV>18AA-V. The order of the EAA values for the formulations was 18AA-II(original research) = 18AA-II>18AA>18AA-I > 18AA-IV > 18AA-V. The overall effectiveness order was 18AA-II(original research) = 18AA-II>18AA > 18AA-I>18AA-IV>18AA-V. Economy: Among the 27 manufacturers, 12 manufacturers had a price/content ratio higher than that of 18AA-II original research manufacturers, and 15 manufacturers had a price/content ratio lower than original research manufacturers. CONCLUSION: Through its security, effectiveness, and economy of the comprehensive research, we recommended 18AA-II and 18AA-IIoriginal research with high safety, efficacy, and reasonable price as the first choice. 18AA and 18AA-I with better safety and reasonable price, secondary recommendation. 18AA-IV or 18AA-V with poor safety, efficacy, and economy are not recommended.