ArticleLipids in health and disease2025
Comparison of treatment patterns, efficacy and safety between generic and branded atorvastatin users in China: a multicenter, retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in Lipids in health and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate and compare the treatment patterns, effectiveness, and safety of generic and branded atorvastatin in China.
methodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study collected and analyzed data from patients who initiated atorvastatin therapy for the first time across 16 hospitals between 2020 and 2022. Treatment patterns included adherence, persistence, switching, augmentation. Absolute reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglycerides, LDL-C reduction ≥ 50%, and adverse events were assessed to measure efficacy and safety. Propensity score matching was utilized to control for potential confounding variables.
resultsData of 359,159 patients were reviewed. The results indicated a greater proportion of patients the generic atorvastatin group (5772/39742 [14.5%]) exhibited good adherence compared to those in the branded atorvastatin group (3157/39742 [7.9%]; P < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 1.97 (95% CI 1.88-2.06; P < 0.001). In the generic atorvastatin group, a smaller proportion of patients discontinued treatment (35,621/39,742 [89.6%]) compared to the branded group (36,390/39742 [91.6%]; P < 0.001) This difference in treatment persistence was further reflected in the calculated hazard ratio, which was 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86; P < 0.001), indicating a reduced risk of discontinuation in the generic group. Efficacy outcomes were comparable between two groups (all P > 0.05). Both groups exhibited a comparable incidence of most adverse events. Less fasting plasma glucose increase and fewer new-onset diabetes were observed in the generic group (0.01 mmol/L [IQR 0-0.58] vs 0.16 mmol/L [IQR 0-0.73]; P = 0.009; 664/28640 [2.3%] vs 1244/28640 [4.3%]; P < 0.001).
conclusionGeneric atorvastatin had higher adherence and persistence and lower costs vs the branded drug, with no significant differences in efficacy and safety. Generic atorvastatin can be considered a viable option for dyslipidemia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
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.