Clinical Outcomes and Safety Profiles of Generic Versus Brand-Name Clopidogrel in Patients Following Coronary Artery Stent Placement

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Cts-Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1111/cts.70143
Chin-Yuan Chia, Fu-Chih Hsiao, Tzyy-Jer Hsu, Ying-Chang Tung, Chia-Pin Lin, Pao-Hsien Chu
{"title":"Clinical Outcomes and Safety Profiles of Generic Versus Brand-Name Clopidogrel in Patients Following Coronary Artery Stent Placement","authors":"Chin-Yuan Chia,&nbsp;Fu-Chih Hsiao,&nbsp;Tzyy-Jer Hsu,&nbsp;Ying-Chang Tung,&nbsp;Chia-Pin Lin,&nbsp;Pao-Hsien Chu","doi":"10.1111/cts.70143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Coronary artery disease remains a significant global health issue and is a leading cause of mortality. Dual antiplatelet therapy, including clopidogrel, is essential for preventing stent thrombosis after coronary artery stenting. This study assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of generic versus brand-name clopidogrel in a large Taiwanese cohort. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Health Insurance database, identifying patients who underwent coronary stenting and received either generic or brand-name clopidogrel between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021. Propensity score matching was employed to balance baseline characteristics. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death over a two-year follow-up. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding requiring hospitalization. A total of 211,509 patients were included, of which 2686 received generic clopidogrel and 208,823 received brand-name clopidogrel. After matching, 2686 patients from each group were analyzed. The hazard ratio for the primary efficacy outcome was 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.78–1.10), indicating no significant difference between the two groups. The subdistribution hazard ratio for the primary safety outcome was 1.06 (95% confidence interval: 0.84–1.33), suggesting no significant difference in bleeding risk. Subgroup analyses showed consistent results across various patient demographics and clinical conditions. In conclusion, among patients undergoing coronary stenting, the risks of ischemic and bleeding events were comparable between those receiving generic and brand-name clopidogrel.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"18 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11770885/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.70143","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Coronary artery disease remains a significant global health issue and is a leading cause of mortality. Dual antiplatelet therapy, including clopidogrel, is essential for preventing stent thrombosis after coronary artery stenting. This study assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of generic versus brand-name clopidogrel in a large Taiwanese cohort. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Health Insurance database, identifying patients who underwent coronary stenting and received either generic or brand-name clopidogrel between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021. Propensity score matching was employed to balance baseline characteristics. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death over a two-year follow-up. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding requiring hospitalization. A total of 211,509 patients were included, of which 2686 received generic clopidogrel and 208,823 received brand-name clopidogrel. After matching, 2686 patients from each group were analyzed. The hazard ratio for the primary efficacy outcome was 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.78–1.10), indicating no significant difference between the two groups. The subdistribution hazard ratio for the primary safety outcome was 1.06 (95% confidence interval: 0.84–1.33), suggesting no significant difference in bleeding risk. Subgroup analyses showed consistent results across various patient demographics and clinical conditions. In conclusion, among patients undergoing coronary stenting, the risks of ischemic and bleeding events were comparable between those receiving generic and brand-name clopidogrel.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
普通氯吡格雷与品牌氯吡格雷在冠状动脉支架置入术后的临床结果和安全性
冠状动脉疾病仍然是一个重大的全球健康问题,也是导致死亡的主要原因。包括氯吡格雷在内的双重抗血小板治疗对于预防冠状动脉支架植入术后支架内血栓形成至关重要。本研究评估仿制药氯吡格雷与品牌药氯吡格雷在台湾大型队列中的比较疗效和安全性。使用国家健康保险数据库进行了一项回顾性队列研究,确定了2008年1月1日至2021年12月31日期间接受冠状动脉支架植入术并接受仿制或品牌氯吡格雷治疗的患者。采用倾向评分匹配来平衡基线特征。在两年的随访中,主要疗效终点是心肌梗死、缺血性卒中或心血管死亡的综合结果。主要的安全结局是大出血需要住院治疗。共纳入211,509例患者,其中仿制氯吡格雷2686例,品牌氯吡格雷208,823例。配对后,每组2686例患者进行分析。主要疗效结局的风险比为0.92(95%可信区间:0.78-1.10),两组间无显著差异。主要安全性结局的亚分布风险比为1.06(95%可信区间:0.84-1.33),表明出血风险无显著差异。亚组分析在不同的患者人口统计和临床条件下显示一致的结果。总之,在接受冠状动脉支架植入术的患者中,接受仿制药和品牌药氯吡格雷的患者发生缺血和出血事件的风险是相当的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
期刊最新文献
Consciousness Disturbances Reported With Clindamycin Versus Cefazolin in Surgical Patients: A Global Pharmacovigilance Analysis Using VigiBase A Long-Term Human Liver Spheroid Model for Assessing Silencing and Durability of GalNAc-Conjugated siRNAs Evaluating Perceived Value of Pharmacogenomic Testing After a Personalized Therapeutics Clinic Consultation Population-Based Modeling to Predict Human PK/PD of TAK-500, an Anti-CCR2 Antibody-Drug Conjugate for First-in-Human Study in Cancer Patients. Esketamine Nasal Spray: Mechanism of Action, Clinical, and Translational Science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1