Trial reportClinical and translational science2017
Therapeutic Differences in 24-h Ambulatory Blood Pressures in Patients Switched Between Bioequivalent Nifedipine Osmotic Systems With Differing Delivery Technologies.
Trial report in Clinical and translational science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can Generic Medications Be a Safe and Effective Alternative to Brand-Name Drugs for Cardiovascular Disease Treatment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparing modified-release formulations can be difficult using current bioequivalence criteria. Two 60-mg-once-daily nifedipine formulations are deemed bioequivalent in Canada. This study examined the validity of the assumption that these interchangeable, but different, delivery technologies are therapeutically equivalent in maintaining systolic blood pressure (SBP) control throughout the entire dosing interval. We used 24-h Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring to objectively examine whether formulation switches changed population SBP >2 mmHg (reflecting 6% increased stroke mortality) and in what proportion of patients SBP changed ≥6 mmHg (risking unnecessary therapeutic alterations). When 20 patients, previously receiving 60-mg-once-daily Nifedipine-GITS, were switched to Mylan-Nifedipine-XL, population-mean ± SE 24-h SBP increased 3 ± 1.1 mmHg (P = 0.0173) and 8-h nocturnal SBP increased 4 ± 1.6 mmHg (P = 0.0098). Thus, interchange of nifedipine formulations can affect therapeutic consistency. These data support existing calls to improve criteria for establishing bioequivalence between formulations employing differing modified-release technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.