| Title |
Generic versus brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Epidemiology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10654-015-0104-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lamberto Manzoli, Maria Elena Flacco, Stefania Boccia, Elvira D’Andrea, Nikola Panic, Carolina Marzuillo, Roberta Siliquini, Walter Ricciardi, Paolo Villari, John P. A. Ioannidis |
| Abstract |
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 25% |
| Colombia | 4 | 11% |
| Argentina | 2 | 6% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 86% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 23% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 33 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,449,570
of 24,601,689 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#211
of 1,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,761
of 397,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,601,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.