ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2025
Efficacy, Safety, Cost, and Clinical Outcomes after the Switch to Generic Rosuvastatin Compared with Consistent Brand-Name Atorvastatin Treatment.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes in patients switching to generic rosuvastatin compared to those taking other brand-name atorvastatin are unclear. Methods: Electronic medical records were retrospectively collected from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020 of patients who switched medication because of hospital policy from brand-name to generic rosuvastatin after March 14, 2018. Only patients who had taken the medication for at least 1 year prior to and 1 year after that date were enrolled. The records of patients who consistently used brand-name atorvastatin during the same period were also collected. The efficacy of lipid control, potential adverse effects, clinical outcomes of major cardiovascular events (MACE), and medical expenses were compared between the 2 groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance potential cofounders. Results: After 1:1 PSM, 592 patients were enrolled in the rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed in total cholesterol level (-4.38 ± 23.0 vs. -3.72 ± 26.95 mg/dL, p = 0.702), low-density lipoprotein (-2.38 ± 19.89 vs. -2.42 ± 23.63 mg/dL, p = 0.976), or glycated hemoglobin (-0.05% ± 0.7% vs. -0.08% ± 0.76%, p = 0.543). No significant difference was noted in cumulative MACE rate (2.70% vs. 3.89%, log-rank p = 0.265) after the switch date, and each person in the generic group had a 16% average reduction in medical expenses. Conclusions: Switching to generic rosuvastatin led to comparable lipid-lowering efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes and lower medical expenses compared with consistently using brand-name atorvastatin.
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.