ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Clinical Outcomes and Safety Profiles of Generic Versus Brand-Name Clopidogrel in Patients Following Coronary Artery Stent Placement.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.