Observational studyPLoS medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of amlodipine versus nifedipine prescribed at discharge in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: A nationwide 5-year follow-up registry study.
Observational study in PLoS medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmlodipine and nifedipine are the most commonly prescribed calcium channel blockers (CCB) for patients suffering from ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of direct comparative evidence on their effectiveness. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of amlodipine and nifedipine in patients with ischemic stroke or TIA. METHODS AND
findingsThis observational study was based on the Third China National Stroke Registry, which recruited consecutive adult patients with ischemic stroke or TIA from 2015 to 2018. In this study, ischemic stroke or TIA patients were prescribed either amlodipine or nifedipine at discharge. The primary outcome was the distribution of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, which assesses functional outcomes in patients with stroke, at 5 years. The intergroup differences were examined using ordinal logistic regression, yielding odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Patient age, gender, body mass index, systolic blood pressure at admission, and onset date were adjusted. To improve baseline characteristic balance, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A total of 2,859 eligible patients were included, and there were 1847 patients in the amlodipine group and 1,058 patients in the nifedipine group after IPTW. The amlodipine group demonstrated significantly lower 5-year mRS scores in comparison to the nifedipine group, with an OR of 0.76 (95% CI [0.65, 0.89]; p < 0.001). A total of 956 (51.76%) amlodipine users and 632 (59.74%) nifedipine users achieved a mRS score > 0 at 5 years, with an OR of 0.71 (95% CI [0.61, 0.83]; p < 0.001). The sensitivity analyses yielded consistent results. The main limitations include the inherent observational design, the exclusive reliance on registry data, and relatively high loss-to-follow-up rate at 5 years.
conclusionsThis study revealed that amlodipine, compared to nifedipine, may be associated with improved functional recovery in ischemic stroke or TIA patients. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings and refine CCB therapy.
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.