Efficacy and safety outcomes of one generic nifedipine versus ADALAT long‐acting nifedipine for hypertension management

Tung, Ying-Chang; Hsu, Tzyy-Jer; Lin, Chia‐Pin; Hsiao, Fu-Chih; Chu, You-Chia; Chen, Wen‐Jone; Chu, Pao‐Hsien

doi:10.1111/jch.14070

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our prior study using the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and heart failure hospitalization, had not differed significantly between the two drugs at a mean follow‐up of 4.1 years. 21 The NHIRD study did not observe significant difference in the risk of all‐cause death (7.2% vs 7.1%; p = .597). However, the NHIRD does not contain BP records, laboratory test results, or clinically relevant demographic data, such as body mass index and smoking history, that may have an impact on cardiovascular outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Although there was a tendency toward a higher risk of death in the generic group, this finding could be play of chance, since the absolute risk difference was small (0.7%) and the BP‐lowering efficacy and the risks of other cardiovascular events were comparable between the two groups. In our prior study using the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and heart failure hospitalization, had not differed significantly between the two drugs at a mean follow‐up of 4.1 years 21 . The NHIRD study did not observe significant difference in the risk of all‐cause death (7.2% vs 7.1%; p = .597).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative effectiveness of generic nifedipine versus Adalat long‐acting nifedipine for hypertension treatment: A multi‐institutional cohort study

Tung

Lin

Hsiao

et al. 2022

J of Clinical Hypertension

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This retrospective multi‐institutional database analysis aimed to evaluate the blood‐pressure‐lowering efficacy and clinical outcomes of a generic versus brand‐name nifedipine for hypertension management. A total of 12 693 patients who were prescribed a generic or brand‐name nifedipine between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were identified from the Chang Gung Research Database of Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals, Taiwan. Among them, 2112 (21.4%) were prescribed generic nifedipine. After propensity score matching, both the generic and brand‐name groups consisted of 2102 patients. At a mean follow‐up of 3 years, the changes in office systolic (p for interaction = .791) and diastolic blood pressure (p for interaction = .689) did not differ significantly between the patients who received the generic and the brand‐name nifedipine. There was no significant difference between the two study groups regarding the composite of all‐cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.85–1.13; p = .774). In conclusion, the generic nifedipine was comparable to its brand‐name counterpart regarding office blood pressure reduction and the composite cardiovascular outcome for the treatment of patients with hypertension.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative effectiveness of generic nifedipine versus Adalat long‐acting nifedipine for hypertension treatment: A multi‐institutional cohort study

Tung

Lin

Hsiao

et al. 2022

J of Clinical Hypertension

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At a mean follow‐up of 4.1 years, the study revealed similar effects of the two drugs—generic (n = 21 087) and brand‐name (n = 77 248) nifedipine—in terms of all‐cause mortality (7.2% vs 7.1%; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95–1.09, P = .597) and composite CV outcome (11.6% vs 11.9%; HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92–1.03, P = .354), including CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and heart failure hospitalization. Despite the fact that increased rates of headache, peripheral edema, and constipation were observed in the generic group, the efficacy of generic nifedipine was not inferior to that of its brand‐name counterpart 16 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…However, the clinical efficacy of generic nifedipine remains unknown. Recently, a nationwide study in Taiwan revealed comparable clinical outcomes between generic nifedipine and its brand‐name counterpart 16 . In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of a generic nifedipine with brand‐name amlodipine in terms of CV outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative efficacy of generic nifedipine versus brand‐name amlodipine for hypertension management in Taiwan

Lee

Huang

Leu

et al. 2022

J of Clinical Hypertension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…They work well for controlling blood pressure in those who also have angina or diabetes. Dihydropyridines and non-dihydropyridines are the two main chemical families of calcium-channel blockers, and they each have their unique pharmacokinetic features and therapeutic indications [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-Silico Docking Studies of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Using Natural Inhibitor

Laxmi¹,

Chakraborty²,

Mishra³

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lowering blood pressure (BP) using antihypertensive medicines lowers the risk of target organ failure as well as the occurrence of cardiovascular disease. The most common modifiable risk factor for death and disability is hypertension, which is associated with strokes, increased coronary and systemic atherosclerosis, heart problems, and chronic kidney diseases (CKD). The majority of deaths and disabilities globally now result from cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), mainly in low- and middle-income nations. Numerous genetic, behavioral, and environmental risk factors all contribute to hypertension, a significant component in the advancement of CVD. Given the significance of protein-ligand interactions in structure-based therapy development, we molecularly docked nifedipine to the cardiovascular target protein to determine the drug’s binding affinity. The Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (Target hypertension Protein) three-dimensional (3D) structure was docked using the Autodock tool, which was retrieved from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Our analysis indicates that nifedipine is an effective choice for treating hypertension and reducing the symptoms of angina (chest pain).

show abstract

Efficacy and safety outcomes of one generic nifedipine versus ADALAT long‐acting nifedipine for hypertension management

Cited by 3 publications

References 38 publications

Comparative effectiveness of generic nifedipine versus Adalat long‐acting nifedipine for hypertension treatment: A multi‐institutional cohort study

Comparative effectiveness of generic nifedipine versus Adalat long‐acting nifedipine for hypertension treatment: A multi‐institutional cohort study

Comparative efficacy of generic nifedipine versus brand‐name amlodipine for hypertension management in Taiwan

In-Silico Docking Studies of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Using Natural Inhibitor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About