Skip to content
RNAWiki

Glyceryl trinitrate

  • Prescription medicine
  • Given by a clinician
  • Identity checked
  • Sources last checked 2026-09-04

This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.

What Glyceryl trinitrate does in the body

The pain stops because demand came down, not because supply went up.

Nitroglycerin is a nitrate ester — chemically the same substance as the explosive, at a dose measured in fractions of a milligram. Inside the body an enzyme in the mitochondria of blood vessel cells strips a nitrate group off it and releases nitric oxide, the molecule the body itself uses to tell vessels to relax. Nitric oxide switches on an enzyme that makes cyclic GMP, and cyclic GMP relaxes the muscle in the vessel wall. Veins relax more than arteries, so blood pools away from the heart, filling pressure falls, and the heart needs less oxygen than it did a minute ago.

Why people take it. Stopping an angina attack that has started, and preventing one that is expected

What happened in people

Reduction in myocardial oxygen demand on pressure-rate product, tension-time index and stroke-work index

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.

The limit that matters most

That nitroglycerin relieves angina by opening the narrowed coronary artery — the label calls the contribution of coronary dilatation unclear

Where it acts
Vascular smooth muscle, with the bioactivation step inside the mitochondrion — the enzyme that turns the drug into a signal is not on the cell surface but in the cell’s power plant
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.

What the registries record it as

  • The substance registry classes this as chemical.

    FDA substance registry · G59M7S0WS3 · read 2026-08-29

Where each sentence above came from

A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.

The recorded use, written for a reader without medical training. Not signed off.

A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.

The four opening statements run to 139 words.

Words this page uses

Four words worth knowing first

Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.

Comparator

A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like the other runner in a race.

Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.

What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.

The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.

Randomisation

Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.

Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.

What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.

Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.

Absolute difference

An absolute difference is how many more people in a hundred were affected.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like counting heads in two rooms of a hundred.

Where that stops being true. Heads are easy to count. Study results carry a margin of error too.

What people get wrong. It is confused with a percentage change, which can look far larger.

The arithmetic difference in event rates between arms.

Confidence interval

A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.

Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.

What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.

An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What happened in people

Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.

Five-week all-cause mortality with one month of oral controlled-release mononitrate against matching placebo, in patients randomised up to 24 hours after onset of suspected acute myocardial infarction

The study did not show it

Who was studied
ISIS-4 — Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival (Lancet 1995;345:669-685)
How many people
58050
Study design
Phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2×2×2 factorial
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
2,129 deaths (7.34%) on mononitrate against 2,190 (7.54%) on placebo — no significant reduction overall or in any subgroup examined, and no later survival advantage on further follow-up
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated

What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. The only significant side effect was an increase of 15 per 1,000 in hypotension. Patients allocated active treatment had somewhat fewer deaths on days 0 to 1, which the investigators described as reassuring about the safety of early nitrate use. Captopril in the same factorial design achieved a significant 7% proportional mortality reduction (7.19% against 7.69%, 2p=0.02), demonstrating the trial could detect an effect of that magnitude.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Sublingual tablet, lingual spray, transdermal patch, topical ointment and intravenous infusion in 5% dextrose

Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

Six-week mortality, and the combined outcome of mortality plus severe ventricular dysfunction, with intravenous then transdermal glyceryl trinitrate against open control after acute myocardial infarction

The study did not show it

Who was studied
GISSI-3 (Lancet 1994;343:1115-1122)
How many people
19394
Study design
Phase 3, randomised, open-control, factorial
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
Odds ratio 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05) for overall mortality and 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.02) for the combined endpoint — no independent effect. Lisinopril in the same trial gave 0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.98)
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated

What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. The design was open-control rather than placebo-controlled, and non-protocol nitrate use was permitted for specific clinical indications, both of which would dilute a genuine effect. Background therapy was intensive: thrombolysis 72%, beta-blockade 31%, aspirin 84%. No excess of clinically relevant unfavourable events was reported in the treated groups.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Sublingual tablet, lingual spray, transdermal patch, topical ointment and intravenous infusion in 5% dextrose

Interval reported. 95% CI 0

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

Forearm blood flow response to intra-arterial nitroglycerin, sodium nitroprusside and verapamil, before and after ALDH2 inhibition with disulfiram, and in carriers of the ALDH2 glu504lys variant against wild-type controls

The study showed what it set out to show

Who was studied
Mackenzie IS et al., forearm blood flow study of ALDH2 and nitroglycerin (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005;25:1891-1895)
How many people
23
Study design
Mechanistic human physiology study, within-subject and genotype-controlled
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Nitroglycerin response reduced 33% in area under the curve after disulfiram (p=0.002) and 40% in glu504lys carriers (p=0.02); nitroprusside and verapamil responses unchanged in both experiments
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated

What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. Twelve volunteers in the disulfiram arm and eleven in the genotype arm — small numbers, which is normal for invasive forearm plethysmography and still a limit on precision. The authors conclude ALDH2 accounts for less than half of total nitroglycerin bioactivation, so a second pathway exists and is uncharacterised. Sample size shown is the sum of the two groups.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Sublingual tablet, lingual spray, transdermal patch, topical ointment and intravenous infusion in 5% dextrose

Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

What we know
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.

What it changes in the bodyRead from sources, not yet reviewed

The path through the body

From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.

Where a source records it acting

  • Blood and vessels: Relaxation of vascular smooth muscle, producing dose-related dilation of both arterial and venous beds

    US prescribing information · 041f127e-5166-4484-bc1a-0a373d1187ae · read 2026-08-27

  • Heart: Dilates large epicardial coronary arteries, although the extent to which this effect contributes to relief of exertional angina is recorded as unclear

    US prescribing information · 041f127e-5166-4484-bc1a-0a373d1187ae · read 2026-08-27

  1. Start

    Glyceryl trinitrate

    What a person takes: Sublingual tablet, lingual spray, transdermal patch, topical ointment and intravenous infusion in 5% dextrose.

    The measurement behind this step

    Sublingual and buccal absorption bypasses hepatic first-pass extraction, which is why relief arrives in minutes; the label directs one tablet at the first sign of an attack, one more every five minutes, no more than three in fifteen minutes, taken at rest and preferably sitting, and allows prophylactic use five to ten minutes before an activity expected to provoke an attack. For patients with a dry mouth the label suggests a small sip of water first to aid dissolution. Transdermal and ointment forms are for prevention rather than rescue and require a daily nitrate-free interval for the same tolerance reason as the oral nitrates. The molecule is volatile and migrates into plastics, so the original glass container with a tight closure is part of the product.

  2. Getting in

    Under the tongue, straight into the blood

    The tablet dissolves against the lining of the mouth and is absorbed directly into the circulation, bypassing the liver — which is why it works in minutes rather than an hour.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Sublingual and buccal absorption avoids the extensive hepatic first-pass extraction that reduces oral nitrate bioavailability to a fraction of the dose. The label directs one tablet at the first sign of an attack, repeated every five minutes to a maximum of three in fifteen minutes, taken sitting.

  3. Reaching the cell

    A mitochondrial enzyme cuts off a nitrate group

    Inside the blood vessel cell, an enzyme in the mitochondria strips one nitrate off the molecule and releases nitric oxide. That enzyme is the same one that clears the toxic breakdown product of alcohol.

    Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.

    The measurement behind this step

    Mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase catalyses formation of 1,2-glyceryl dinitrate and nitrite from glyceryl trinitrate. Inhibition with disulfiram reduced the human forearm blood flow response by 33% (p=0.002), and carriers of the glu504lys loss-of-function variant showed a 40% reduction (p=0.02), while the response to nitroprusside was unaffected in both.

  4. What it acts on

    Nitric oxide switches on guanylate cyclase

    The released nitric oxide activates an enzyme that produces a second messenger, and that messenger tells the muscle in the vessel wall to let go.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    The label states that nitroglycerin forms free radical nitric oxide which activates guanylate cyclase, increasing cyclic GMP in smooth muscle and other tissues, leading to dephosphorylation of myosin light chains and vasodilatation.

  5. The change it makes

    Veins widen, so the heart is asked to do less

    The veins relax more than the arteries, so blood pools away from the heart. With less blood returning, the heart does less work and needs less oxygen.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Venous effects predominate. Dilation of postcapillary vessels promotes peripheral pooling, decreases venous return and reduces left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; arteriolar relaxation reduces peripheral resistance and arterial pressure. Myocardial oxygen consumption falls on pressure-rate product, tension-time index and stroke-work index.

  6. What that does for a person

    The attack stops, usually within minutes

    That is what the drug is licensed for and what it reliably does: relief of an angina attack, or prevention of one expected in the next few minutes.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    The indication is acute relief of an attack or acute prophylaxis of angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease. The label directs seeking prompt medical attention if pain persists after three tablets in fifteen minutes or if the pain differs from the usual pattern.

  7. What that does for a person

    And nothing beyond that has been shown

    Given routinely after a heart attack in two trials totalling more than seventy-seven thousand people, nitrates made no difference to survival.

    Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.

    The measurement behind this step

    ISIS-4: five-week mortality 7.34% against 7.54% with oral mononitrate in 58,050 patients, no significant reduction overall or in any subgroup. GISSI-3: transdermal glyceryl trinitrate odds ratio 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05) for mortality in 19,394 patients, no independent effect, while lisinopril in the same trial gave 0.88 (0.79 to 0.99).

No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.

What we know
The record describes 6 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Were people like you studied?

RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.

Who was studied

People similar to this profile were included.

  • Adults with angina, for relief of an attack or before an activity known to provoke one. Not people taking phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, not people in shock, not people with severe anaemia or raised intracranial pressure.

Who is missing from the studies

  • Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

What the label states about particular groups

  • On pediatric, the label states: “Safety and effectiveness of nitroglycerin in pediatric patients have not been established.”

    US prescribing information · e7bbeff1-e4f1-43a6-a1b3-a8c3dcae817d · read 2026-08-30

  • On older people, the label states: “Clinical studies did not include sufficient numbers of subjects aged 65 and over to determine whether they respond differently from younger subjects.”

    US prescribing information · e7bbeff1-e4f1-43a6-a1b3-a8c3dcae817d · read 2026-08-30

  • On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk summary Limited published data on the use of nitroglycerin are insufficient to determine a drug associated risk of major birth defects or miscarriage.”

    US prescribing information · e7bbeff1-e4f1-43a6-a1b3-a8c3dcae817d · read 2026-08-30

  • On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk summary Sublingual nitroglycerin has not been studied in lactating women.”

    US prescribing information · e7bbeff1-e4f1-43a6-a1b3-a8c3dcae817d · read 2026-08-30

Where the result stopped carrying

  • ISIS-4: no significant mortality reduction with oral mononitrate, overall or in any subgroup
  • GISSI-3: no independent effect of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate on mortality or on ventricular dysfunction
  • Continuous nitrate exposure, which induces tolerance by inhibiting the very enzyme the drug depends on
  • The mechanism of bioactivation remained unidentified for 123 years of clinical use
  • This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
  • It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.

RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Why it might seem to do nothing

A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.

It was studied in different people

The people in the studies were not much like the reader.

On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

The evidence may simply be wrong

Small early studies often do not hold up.

On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What taking it involves

The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.

How it is supplied

Given by a clinician

Quoted from a source

Where this came from

Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.

Read from the recorded approval status.

No source is stored against this line.

Form and route

Sublingual tablet, lingual spray, transdermal patch, topical ointment and intravenous infusion in 5% dextrose

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

The form and route recorded on this substance.

No source is stored against this line.

Who oversees it

RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.

Quoted from a source

Where this came from

Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.

No register row and no identity class settled the question.

No source is stored against this line.

What is in the pack

Sublingual and buccal absorption bypasses hepatic first-pass extraction, which is why relief arrives in minutes; the label directs one tablet at the first sign of an attack, one more every five minutes, no more than three in fifteen minutes, taken at rest and preferably sitting, and allows prophylactic use five to ten minutes before an activity expected to provoke an attack.

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: For patients with a dry mouth the label suggests a small sip of water first to aid dissolution. Transdermal and ointment forms are for prevention rather than rescue and require a daily nitrate-free interval for the same tolerance reason as the oral nitrates. The molecule is volatile and migrates into plastics, so the original glass container with a tight closure is part of the product.

No source is stored against this line.

Where it is registered

Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.

Counted from records

Where this came from

A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.

Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.

No source is stored against this line.

Why people stop

Not recorded.

Nothing recorded

Where this came from

RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.

No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.

No source is stored against this line.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What can go wrong

Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.

Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page

Contraindicated with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (avanafil, sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil) and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators such as riociguat, in severe anaemia because large doses may oxidise haemoglobin to methaemoglobin, in possible raised intracranial pressure such as cerebral haemorrhage or traumatic brain injury, in acute circulatory failure and shock, and in hypersensitivity to nitroglycerin, other nitrates or nitrites. Severe hypotension can occur at small doses, particularly upright, and may be accompanied by paradoxical bradycardia and increased angina; risk is higher in constrictive pericarditis, aortic or mitral stenosis, volume depletion and existing hypotension. Nitrate therapy may aggravate the angina of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Dose-related headache is common at the start of therapy, may be severe and persistent, and usually subsides with continued use. Excessive use leads to tolerance, and long-acting nitrates may reduce the effect of the sublingual form.

Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.

Where this came from

Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.

Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Does the exact form matter?

Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.

The form that was studied

Sublingual tablet, lingual spray, transdermal patch, topical ointment and intravenous infusion in 5% dextrose

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

The form used in the studies cited on this page.

No source is stored against this line.

What is sold

For patients with a dry mouth the label suggests a small sip of water first to aid dissolution. Transdermal and ointment forms are for prevention rather than rescue and require a daily nitrate-free interval for the same tolerance reason as the oral nitrates. The molecule is volatile and migrates into plastics, so the original glass container with a tight closure is part of the product.

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.

No source is stored against this line.

What is recorded as being sold

  • 206 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 133 of them contain it and nothing else.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 72603-266 · read 2026-08-29

  • They are sold as capsule, globule, injection, injection, solution, liquid and ointment, taken intravenous, nasal, oral and rectal.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 72603-266 · read 2026-08-29

  • The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is nitrate vasodilator [epc], nitrates [cs] and vasodilation [pe].

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 72603-266 · read 2026-08-29

  • 148 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 76 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.

    US prescribing information · 85a3f76b-7b09-5d00-e053-2a91aa0ad1de · read 2026-08-29

  • Those labels are classed as human otc drug and human prescription drug.

    US prescribing information · 85a3f76b-7b09-5d00-e053-2a91aa0ad1de · read 2026-08-29

  • 111 marketed supplement labels list this ingredient, classed as non-nutrient/non-botanical and other combinations.

    NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · 273004 · read 2026-08-29

  • Those labels carry all other, nutrient and structure/function claims. A claim of that kind is written by the manufacturer and is not assessed by any regulator, so its presence says nothing about whether it is true.

    NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · 273004 · read 2026-08-29

  • NITROGLYCERIN is sublingual tablets at Sublingual tablets, 0.3 mg; 0.4 mg; 0.6 mg, recorded as prescription product; fda label in effect 2024-10-15 in the United States.

    US prescribing information · 041f127e-5166-4484-bc1a-0a373d1187ae · read 2026-08-27

  • Recorded price in US: 0.06191–0.94832 USD per one unit as the pricing file counts it — a tablet, capsule, patch or single item, across 53 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..

    Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28

  • Recorded price in US: 9.03422–23.79828 USD per one gram, across 11 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..

    Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28

Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What you could measure

This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.

RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.

Questions worth asking

  • Which of the trials of Glyceryl trinitrate studied people like me?
  • What was measured, and for how long?
  • Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
  • What would we watch for, and when would we stop?

Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.

RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Claims that go past the evidence

Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.

Goes past the evidence

That nitroglycerin relieves angina by opening the narrowed coronary artery — the label calls the contribution of coronary dilatation unclear

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That routine nitrate therapy after myocardial infarction improves survival — tested in 77,444 randomised patients and found not to

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That a long-acting nitrate and a sublingual rescue tablet are independent treatments, when the label states the former can reduce the effect of the latter

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That ALDH2 explains nitrate bioactivation completely — the authors of the human study state it accounts for less than half

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What nobody knows yet

Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.

Missing populations

Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Missing long-term data

No completed tested study window is recorded.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

No reviewed conclusion

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Missing interaction studies

No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Formulation uncertainty

Several salts, forms or products of Glyceryl trinitrate are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Mechanism not reviewed

No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Check any of this yourself

Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.

Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.

ISIS-4: no survival benefit in 58,050 patients
In plain words
The largest trial ever run on a nitrate gave an oral nitrate to nearly thirty thousand people after a suspected heart attack and compared them with nearly thirty thousand on placebo. Five-week deaths were 7.34% against 7.54%. No subgroup did better.
What was measured
Five-week all-cause mortality with oral controlled-release mononitrate against placebo in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
ISIS-4 randomised 58,050 patients entering 1,086 hospitals up to 24 hours after the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarction, in a 2×2×2 factorial design testing captopril, oral controlled-release mononitrate and intravenous magnesium. For the nitrate comparison there was no significant reduction in five-week mortality either overall — 2,129 deaths (7.34%) against 2,190 (7.54%) — or in any subgroup examined, including patients already receiving short-term non-study nitrates at entry. Further follow-up showed no later survival advantage. The only significant side effect was an increase of 15 per 1,000 in hypotension. Two things are worth taking from this. First, the trial was large enough to exclude anything but a very small benefit, which is what makes a null result here informative rather than merely inconclusive. Second, in the same trial captopril produced a significant 7% proportional mortality reduction (7.19% against 7.69%, 2p=0.02), so the design was demonstrably capable of detecting an effect of that size.
Source
ISIS-4 Collaborative Group. Lancet 1995;345:669-685
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
GISSI-3: transdermal nitroglycerin had no independent effect either
In plain words
Nearly twenty thousand patients after a heart attack were given nitroglycerin patches or not. The patches made no difference to death or to heart function. The ACE inhibitor tested in the same trial did.
What was measured
Six-week mortality and combined mortality plus severe ventricular dysfunction with transdermal glyceryl trinitrate in 19,394 patients after acute myocardial infarction
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
GISSI-3 randomised 19,394 patients from 200 Italian coronary care units within 24 hours of infarct symptoms, in a factorial design testing lisinopril and nitrates — intravenous for the first 24 hours followed by transdermal glyceryl trinitrate 10 mg daily — against open control. Overall six-week mortality was 6.7%. Lisinopril produced significant reductions in overall mortality (odds ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99) and in the combined outcome of mortality and severe ventricular dysfunction (0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98). Systematic transdermal glyceryl trinitrate showed no independent effect on either: 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.02). The combination of lisinopril and nitrate did reduce both, but so did lisinopril alone. The background care was intensive — thrombolysis in 72%, beta-blockade in 31%, aspirin in 84% — and non-protocol nitrate use was permitted for clinical indications, which would dilute a real effect. Taken with ISIS-4, 77,444 randomised patients have now been asked whether routine nitrate therapy after infarction saves lives, and the answer both times was no.
Source
GISSI-3 Investigators. Lancet 1994;343:1115-1122
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
After 123 years of use, the activating enzyme was finally identified
In plain words
Nitroglycerin was used as a medicine from 1879. The enzyme that converts it into the active signal, and whose failure explains why it stops working, was identified in 2002.
What was measured
Identification of mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase as the nitrate reductase bioactivating glyceryl trinitrate, and its inhibition in tolerant vessels
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Chen, Zhang and Stamler purified a nitrate reductase that specifically catalyses formation of 1,2-glyceryl dinitrate and nitrite from glyceryl trinitrate, leading to cyclic GMP production and vascular smooth muscle relaxation both in vitro and in vivo, and identified it as mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase. Crucially, they showed the enzyme is inhibited in blood vessels made tolerant by nitroglycerin — which supplies a mechanism for tolerance rather than a description of it, and locates the failure upstream at bioactivation rather than downstream at the cyclase. Their own paper opens by noting the drug had been used to treat angina and heart failure for over 130 years while the molecular mechanism of biotransformation remained a mystery. This is what a genuinely delayed mechanism looks like: not a controversy, simply a question nobody could answer while the drug was prescribed daily to millions.
Source
Chen Z, Zhang J, Stamler JS. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:8306-8311
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A common East Asian gene variant blunts the response by about 40%
In plain words
The enzyme that activates nitroglycerin is the same one that clears alcohol’s toxic breakdown product. People with the common East Asian variant of that gene — the one that causes facial flushing after a drink — get substantially less vasodilatation from the drug.
What was measured
Forearm blood flow response to intra-arterial nitroglycerin after ALDH2 inhibition (−33% AUC, p=0.002) and in glu504lys carriers (−40% AUC, p=0.02)
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Mackenzie and colleagues measured forearm blood flow responses to intra-arterial nitroglycerin, sodium nitroprusside and verapamil in 12 healthy volunteers before and after aldehyde dehydrogenase inhibition with disulfiram. All three drugs dilated dose-dependently, but only the nitroglycerin response fell after disulfiram — a 33% reduction in area under the curve, p=0.002. Separately, 11 subjects of East Asian origin carrying the loss-of-function glu504lys mutation in ALDH2 received the same three infusions: only the nitroglycerin response was lower than in East Asian and non-Asian wild-type controls, a 40% reduction in area under the curve, p=0.02. The authors concluded that ALDH2 is involved in nitroglycerin bioactivation in humans in vivo but accounts for less than half of total bioactivation. The clinical implication they draw is precise: this may matter in patients with ALDH2 mutations and in those taking drugs that inhibit the enzyme. The specificity of the finding is what makes it strong — nitroprusside, which releases nitric oxide without needing the enzyme, was unaffected in both experiments.
Source
Mackenzie IS, Maki-Petaja KM, McEniery CM, et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005;25:1891-1895
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
It probably is not opening the coronary artery, and the label says so
In plain words
The common explanation — that the tablet opens up the blocked artery — is not what the prescribing information supports. It says the contribution of coronary dilatation to relief of exertional angina is unclear.
What was measured
That nitroglycerin relieves angina by opening the narrowed coronary artery — an explanation the label describes as of unclear contribution, against demand reduction which it states without qualification
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The NITROSTAT pharmacodynamics section states that nitroglycerin dilates large epicardial coronary arteries, and then immediately adds: "however, the extent to which this latter effect contributes to the relief of exertional angina is unclear." What it does assert without hedging is the demand side: dilation of postcapillary vessels including large veins promotes peripheral pooling, decreases venous return and reduces left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; arteriolar relaxation reduces peripheral resistance and arterial pressure; and myocardial oxygen consumption or demand, measured by pressure-rate product, tension-time index and stroke-work index, is decreased. The label even notes that effective coronary perfusion pressure can be compromised if blood pressure falls excessively or heart rate rises enough to shorten diastolic filling. So the mechanism the regulator stands behind is that the heart is asked to do less, not that more blood is delivered. That difference explains why the drug works so well for symptoms and did nothing for survival in two mega-trials.
Source
NITROSTAT (nitroglycerin) sublingual tablets United States prescribing information, section 12.2 (NDA 021134)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A preventive nitrate can blunt the rescue one
In plain words
The sublingual tablet’s own label warns that taking a long-acting nitrate can reduce how well the emergency tablet works. Two prescriptions from the same class can undermine each other.
What was measured
Label-stated reduction in sublingual nitroglycerin effect resulting from use of long-acting nitrates
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
The NITROSTAT warnings section states: "Excessive use may lead to the development of tolerance. Only the smallest dose required for effective relief of the acute angina attack should be used. A decrease in therapeutic effect of sublingual nitroglycerin may result from use of long-acting nitrates." That is a specific and under-appreciated interaction between two members of the same class prescribed for the same disease — the preventive nitrate maintains the continuous exposure that induces tolerance, and the rescue nitrate then has to act on a tolerant vessel. It is mechanistically coherent with the 2002 finding that mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase is inhibited in vessels made tolerant by nitroglycerin: the enzyme the rescue tablet depends on has already been suppressed by the patch or the tablet taken for prevention.
Source
NITROSTAT United States prescribing information, section 5.1 (NDA 021134); Chen Z, Zhang J, Stamler JS. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:8306-8311
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Five absolute contraindications, and one of them is anaemia
In plain words
Besides the well-known ban on erectile dysfunction drugs, nitroglycerin is contraindicated in severe anaemia, in raised pressure inside the skull, and in shock — each for a different and specific reason.
What was measured
Enumerated contraindications and the stated physiological reason for each
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The label lists five contraindications. Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors — avanafil, sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil — because concomitant use can cause severe hypotension, syncope or myocardial ischaemia; soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators such as riociguat for the same pathway reason. Severe anaemia, because large doses of nitroglycerin may oxidise haemoglobin to methaemoglobin and could exacerbate the anaemia — a chemical consequence of giving a nitrate to blood that is already short of oxygen-carrying capacity. Possible increased intracranial pressure, such as cerebral haemorrhage or traumatic brain injury, because the drug may precipitate or aggravate that rise. Acute circulatory failure and shock, where reducing venous return is precisely the wrong intervention. And hypersensitivity to nitroglycerin, other nitrates or nitrites, or any excipient. The label separately warns that nitrate therapy may aggravate the angina caused by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, where reducing preload worsens outflow obstruction.
Source
NITROSTAT United States prescribing information, sections 4.1 to 4.5 and 5.3 (NDA 021134)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

How many documents were read

  • 68 documents were read for this substance.

    RNAWiki source record

Where else this substance is registered

FDA substance identifier (UNII)
G59M7S0WS3
CAS registry number
55-63-0
PubChem compound
4510
RxNorm concept
4917

Checks this page had to pass

  • Passed

    Identity resolved

    no open identity hold

  • Passed

    No unresolved merge across substance families

    no quarantine open

  • Passed

    Every public sentence names a source

    The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.

  • Not passed

    Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence

    No registered study is classified as testing this substance.

  • Passed

    No internal keys in reader text

    enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page

  • Not passed

    Safety mode resolved

    No register row and no identity class settled the question.

  • Passed

    Canonical metadata present

    slug and display name present

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

How this medicine reached us

Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.

  1. Withdrawn in United States, 2013, for "Presence of Particulate Matter; particulate matter in one vial identified as silicone rubber and EPDM rubber from the vial stopper." (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)

What the approval register records

  • 66 approved applications cover products containing this substance. The earliest was ANDA087355, approved 19810528 to FOUGERA PHARMS INC.

    Drugs@FDA application register · ANDA087355 · read 2026-08-29

  • Marketing status on the register: discontinued, none (tentative approval) and prescription.

    Drugs@FDA application register · ANDA087355 · read 2026-08-29

  • The earliest marketing start date recorded for a listed product is 19711216.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 72603-266 · read 2026-08-29

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What to learn next

Ordered by what would most change how you read this page, starting with what is easiest to misunderstand.

This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.

What is not here

7 questions this page could not answer

These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.

  • What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.

The record as stored

The full record, for auditing

Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.

The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record

Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.

The nitrate that reliably relieves an angina attack within minutes by releasing nitric oxide after mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase reduces it — and which, given systematically after myocardial infarction, produced no survival benefit in either of its two mega-trials: ISIS-4 found 5-week mortality of 7.34% against 7.54% in 58,050 patients, and GISSI-3 found an odds ratio of 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05) for transdermal glyceryl trinitrate in 19,394.

Recorded evidence blocks (9)

On the Glyceryl trinitrate label: indicated for what?

"Nitroglycerin sublingual tablets are indicated for the acute relief of an attack or acute prophylaxis of angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease. Nitroglycerin sublingual tablets are nitrate vasodilator indicated for relief of an attack or prophylaxis of angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease.": indications and usage on Glyceryl trinitrate's label. DailyMed label · 486f53ce-e3c6-48b0-a6ef-9d08cde387e3 · 2026-08-10

109 registered trials of Glyceryl trinitrate — at which phases?

Registered studies posting no result
92 of 109

109 registered studies of Glyceryl trinitrate: 29 na, 24 phase4, 21 phase3, 20 phase2, 13 phase1, 7 na or unstated, 3 early phase1. CLINICALTRIALS_SNAPSHOT · 2026-09-01

622 with a PubMed record

Show the evidence
  • na
    29
  • phase4
    24
  • phase3
    21
  • phase2
    20
  • phase1
    13
  • na or unstated
    7
7 more recorded rows
  • early phase1
    3
  • completed
    66
  • unknown
    24
  • terminated
    8
  • not yet recruiting
    6
  • recruiting
    4
  • active not recruiting
    1

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

7 of Glyceryl trinitrate's trials stopped: safety, accrual/recruitment, funding/business, other?

safety (1), accrual/recruitment (4), funding/business (1) and other (1): Glyceryl trinitrate's stop wording, clustered. CLINICALTRIALS_SNAPSHOT · 2026-09-01

"Because one of the drugs Valdecoxib was withdrawn due to safety concerns."; 7 of 109 registered studies

Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT00419549
    terminated; "Because one of the drugs Valdecoxib was withdrawn due to safety concerns."
  • NCT00586261
    terminated; "Low enrollment because of the specifics of the inclusion criteria"
  • NCT02115256
    terminated; "difficult recruitment"
  • NCT02164318
    terminated; "Lack of enrollment"
  • NCT03716050
    terminated; "PI decision due to slow accrual"
  • NCT04220281
    terminated; "the number of patients needed for the study have been collected"
  • 1 further recorded trial NCT05031520
    terminated; "Study was terminated due to funding expiration."

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Human studies of Glyceryl trinitrate used Nitroglycerin 15mg — over how long?

Human studies of Glyceryl trinitrate used "Nitroglycerin 15mg". ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

10 recorded entries; human; patch, infusion; also "Rectogesic® (glyceryl trinitrate 0.4% ointment)", "Nitroglycerin 0.25 mg (single dose, no longer given since January 2017)", "Nitroglycerin patch 5mg"

Show the evidence

human

  • NCT00686231
    Nitroglycerin 15mg
  • NCT01132391
    Rectogesic® (glyceryl trinitrate 0.4% ointment)
  • NCT01742702
    Nitroglycerin 0.25 mg (single dose, no longer given since January 2017)
  • NCT03235921
    patch; Nitroglycerin patch 5mg
  • NCT03716050
    Nitro-Bid 2%
  • NCT03777605
    Nitroglycerin 0.4 MG
4 more recorded rows
  • human NCT04008732
    Nitrostat 0.6Mg Sublingual Tablet
  • human NCT04008732
    Nitroglycerin 0.6 mg
  • human NCT04220606
    infusion; Glyceryl trinitrate (I.V. infusion 0.5 µg/kg/min over 20 min)
  • human NCT05907655
    Nitroglycerin 0.3 MG

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Glyceryl trinitrate's half-life is 32 minutes — which schedules were studied?

32 minutes, the half-life Glyceryl trinitrate's label states: "The elimination half-life of 1,2- and 1,3-dinitroglycerin is 36 and 32 minutes, respectively." DailyMed label · 486f53ce-e3c6-48b0-a6ef-9d08cde387e3 · 2026-08-10

bioavailability 40 %.

Show the evidence
  • half life pharmacokinetics
    32 minutes; The elimination half-life of 1,2- and 1,3-dinitroglycerin is 36 and 32 minutes, respectively.
  • bioavailability pharmacokinetics
    40 %; The absolute bioavailability of nitroglycerin from nitroglycerin sublingual tablets is approximately 40% but tends to be variable due to factors influencing drug absorption, such as sublingual hydration and mucosal metabolism.
  • metabolism pharmacokinetics
    The absolute bioavailability of nitroglycerin from nitroglycerin sublingual tablets is approximately 40% but tends to be variable due to factors influencing drug absorption, such as sublingual hydration and mucosal metabolism.

recorded 2026-08-10 · last checked 2026-09-04

Which 51 trials of Glyceryl trinitrate posted no result?

Posted no result
51 of 51 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00000503, NCT00810381, NCT00001716, NCT01616485, NCT00093886 and NCT00090558, and 45 more
Completion dates
oldest 1987-10; newest 2024-06-30
Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT00000503
    1987-10
  • NCT00810381
    1999-06
  • NCT00001716
    2003-07
  • NCT01616485
    2004-05
  • NCT00093886
    2005-04
  • NCT00090558
    2005-09
14 further recorded trials
  • NCT00479908
    2005-09
  • NCT00335010
    2005-12
  • NCT00480753
    2007-08
  • NCT00513994
    2007-10
  • NCT00043719
    2007-12
  • NCT00431691
    2007-12
  • NCT00700518
    2008-11
  • NCT01132391
    2009-06
  • NCT00712894
    2009-08
  • NCT01279551
    2010-12
  • NCT01444885
    2012-07
  • NCT02083055
    2014-02
  • NCT01608880
    2014-06
  • NCT01685710
    2015-06

At the median, Glyceryl trinitrate's trials enrolled 62 people — anything larger?

Median enrolment
62
Largest enrolment
2400
Registered trials counted
108

What do 2848 spontaneous reports say about Glyceryl trinitrate — and not say?

These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.

Glyceryl trinitrate appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 2848 reaction mentions were counted: hypotension 508; fall 353; drug hypersensitivity 320; pain 269. FAERS via Open Targets · CHEMBL730 · 2026-06-24

Show the evidence
  • hypotension
    508
  • fall
    353
  • drug hypersensitivity
    320
  • pain
    269
  • orthostatic hypotension
    269
  • constipation
    245
4 more recorded rows
  • cognitive disorder
    236
  • balance disorder
    230
  • sedation
    219
  • depressed level of consciousness
    199

recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04

Which 10 reactions does Glyceryl trinitrate's label not list?

balance disorder, cognitive disorder and constipation and 7 more reported for Glyceryl trinitrate, absent from its label. FAERS via Open Targets · CHEMBL730 · 2026-06-24

2 label terms; 10 reported and unlisted; 486f53ce-e3c6-48b0-a6ef-9d08cde387e3

Show the evidence
  • balance disorder
    count not stated
  • cognitive disorder
    count not stated
  • constipation
    count not stated
  • depressed level of consciousness
    count not stated
  • drug hypersensitivity
    count not stated
  • fall
    count not stated
4 more recorded rows
  • hypotension
    count not stated
  • orthostatic hypotension
    count not stated
  • pain
    count not stated
  • sedation
    count not stated

recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04

Where it is registered

Where it’s registered

Withdrawn in United States, 2013, for "Presence of Particulate Matter; particulate matter in one vial identified as silicone rubber and EPDM rubber from the vial stopper." (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)

Identifiers, relations and other names

The exact record

ChEMBL id
CHEMBL730
PubChem CID
4510
CAS number
55-63-0
RxCUI
4917
InChIKey
SNIOPGDIGTZGOP-UHFFFAOYSA-N
Trade name
Gonitro, Coro-nitro, Deponit 10, Deponit 5, Glytrin, Lenitral 7.5, Minitran, Minitran 10, Minitran 15, Minitran 5, Natirose, Nitriderm tts
Also called
NITROGLYCERIN, Diluted nitroglycerin, Glonoinum, Imx-150, Mitomen, Mustron, Nitora, Trinitrin, Trinitrine, gtn, gtn patch, med2005
Development code
C01DA02
Salt form
Chlormethine oxide hydrochloride, Glyceryl trinitrate solution, Mechlorethamine oxide hcl, Nitroglycerin tablets, Nitromin hydrochloride, gtn ointment
Sources (7)

Sources

1 more source

ChEMBL 37 — CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported · ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work · openFDA enforcement — US Government work

How these records are assembled · Which registers were checked

Index-quality checks
  • identity passed: no open identity hold
  • required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
  • public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
  • source coverage passed: 7 source rows
  • no critical contamination: no quarantine open
  • canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
  • no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page

This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.