ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2022
Comparative efficacy of generic nifedipine versus brand-name amlodipine for hypertension management in Taiwan.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 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
- Comparative efficacy of generic nifedipine versus brand-name amlodipine for hypertension management in Taiwan.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The control rate of hypertension remains concerning, indicating the requirement for better management strategies. The calcium channel blockers brand-name amlodipine and nifedipine with extended-release formulations demonstrate similar clinical efficacy. However, the efficacy of generic nifedipine remains obscure. We compared the efficacy of generic nifedipine and brand-name amlodipine in terms of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Patients prescribed generic nifedipine (SRFC CYH) or brand-name amlodipine besylate (Norvasc, Pfizer) between August 1, 2017, and July 31, 2018, were enrolled; patients with CV events within 3 months were excluded. CV outcomes included CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and composite endpoints of 3P- and 4P-major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A total of 1625 patients treated with nifedipine (SRFC CYH) and 16 587 patients treated with Norvasc were included. After propensity score matching, there were 995 and 4975 patients in the nifedipine CYH and Norvasc groups, respectively. At a mean follow-up period of 30.3 ± 6.4 months, nifedipine CYH was comparable to Norvasc in terms of CV death (P = .107), nonfatal MI (P = .121), nonfatal ischemic stroke (P = .453), hospitalization for heart failure (P = .330), 3P-MACE (P = .584), and 4P-MACE (P = .274). Cox regression analysis revealed that nifedipine CYH and Norvasc had similar efficacy in terms of 3P-MACE (hazard ratio, 0.970; 95% confidence interval, 0.601-1.565, P = .900) and 4P-MACE (hazard ratio, 0.880; 95% confidence interval, 0.628-1.233, P = .459). In conclusion, Nifedipine SRFC CYH and Norvasc have comparable clinical efficacy for hypertension management.
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.