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

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.

Intravenous iron supplementation does not increase infectious disease risk in hemodialysis patients: a nationwide cohort-based case-crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported conflicting findings on the infection risk posed by intravenous iron supplementation among hemodialysis (HD) patients. We used a novel study design to assess associations between intravenous iron and infectious diseases. METHODS: Patients initiating HD between 1998 and 2008 were extracted from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Their first infectious disease in the period between 1.5 years after dialysis initiation and 2010 was identified and defined as the index date. Through the case-crossover design, the odds of exposure to intravenous iron within the 1-month period immediately preceding the index date (i.e., the case period) were compared with iron exposure in three different matched control periods for the same enrollee, thus possibly reducing some unmeasured confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1410 patients who met our enrollment criteria were extracted from incident HD patients. The odds of intravenous iron exposure during the case period versus total control periods exhibited no significant difference (odds ratio: 1.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.33). In subgroup analyses, this association remained nonsignificant across patients with diabetes mellitus, heart failure, chronic lung disease, venous catheter for HD, and higher iron load. CONCLUSIONS: We found that intravenous iron supplementation did not increase short-term infection risk among HD patients.