Once daily nifedipine: the formulation dictates the pharmacokinetic characteristics and the therapeutic responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nifedipine as a pharmacologic agent for treating hypertension and angina pectoris has been available worldwide since the early 1980's. However, the formulation of nifedipine has undergone a number of modifications over time to improve the pharmacokinetic profile and administration regimen from 3 times daily to once daily. Nifedipine Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System (GITS) is the most widely studied of the once daily formulations from both a pharmacokinetic and clinical perspective. Nifedipine GITS was registered in most major countries worldwide based on both clinical pharmacology and clinical trial data in adequately powered studies. Moreover, outcome trials in both hypertension (INSIGHT) and angina pectoris (ACTION) have been completed and published. Other once daily modified release nifedipine formulations are available in a number of countries but limited published data is available on these formulations. A Pubmed (Medline) search using the terms "nifedipine pharmacokinetics" yielded 162 articles of which 7 provided detailed pharmacokinetic values in head to head comparisons of nifedipine GITS and another once a day formulation. These published pharmacokinetic studies have failed to show that any of the other formulations is consistently bioequivalent to the reference formulation, nifedipine GITS. In addition, other Pubmed searches yielded limited data from comparative clinical studies, which show significant differences in favor of the nifedipine GITS formulation in terms of blood pressure control and activation of the sympathetic nervous system. With limited data comparing once daily formulations of nifedipine to nifedipine GITS and no data comparing between other once a day formulations, for both pharmacokinetic and therapeutic reasons, the evidence indicates that patients should not be switched between once daily formulations of nifedipine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".