Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Risk of Acute Infections in New Users of Antihypertensive Drugs: An Observational Cohort Study.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- FDA-approved drug library screen identifies antidepressants, antimicrobials, anti-COPD, and anti-CVD agents as blockers of NLRP3 inflammasome and sepsis in a sex-dependent manner.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunctional inhibitors of acid sphingomyelinase enhance human immune function in vitro. We compared the risk of acute infection in users of amlodipine, a functional inhibitor of acid sphingomyelinase, to users of other first-line antihypertensive drugs.
methodsWe conducted a cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD (2000-2021). We included new monousers of amlodipine, ramipril, or bendroflumethiazide without preexisting cardiovascular disease. In 2 pairwise comparisons (amlodipine versus ramipril/bendroflumethiazide), we followed patients for as long as they were exposed to compare risk of the primary outcome (acute outpatient infections including respiratory, genitourinary, gastrointestinal infections, and sepsis) and diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections in 2020/2021 (amlodipine versus ramipril). We estimated incidence rates (IR) and IR ratios using negative binomial regression, overall and in subgroup analyses. We controlled for confounding using fine stratification on the propensity score.
resultsAfter propensity score weighting, we included 121 847 amlodipine versus 122 096 ramipril users and 46 368 amlodipine versus 153 660 bendroflumethiazide users. IRs for the primary outcome ranged from 38.9 per 1000 person-years for amlodipine to 51.6/1000 person-years for bendroflumethiazide. The weighted IR ratios for acute infections were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) for amlodipine versus ramipril, and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75-0.81) for amlodipine versus bendroflumethiazide. These results were robust after excluding patients with diabetes, after restriction to patients with diagnosed hypertension, and within other subgroup analyses. Amlodipine (versus ramipril) was associated with an IR ratio for SARS-CoV-2 infection of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.48-0.67).
conclusionsAmlodipine may be associated with a lower risk of acute infections compared with ramipril and bendroflumethiazide.
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.