MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4408957167 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007896.pub4

Effect of amphetamines on blood pressure

2025· review· en· W4408957167 sur OpenAlexaff
Magnus Chan, Jocelyn Chan, James M Wright

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiqueForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePlaceboBlood pressureAdverse effectHeart rateMeta-analysisConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialRelative riskClinical trialPhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Daily ingestion of amphetamines is common, as they are widely prescribed for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other diagnoses. People also use amphetamines recreationally or in an attempt to boost cognitive or athletic performance. Amphetamines have the potential to increase blood pressure, and we do not know if the long-term benefits of daily amphetamine use outweigh the potential harms. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in children and adults taking amphetamines, compared to placebo. Secondary: to quantify the changes in heart rate in children and adults taking amphetamines, compared to placebo; to quantify the number of withdrawals due to adverse effects of amphetamine, compared to placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trial registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. We imposed no restrictions on language, publication year or publication status. The latest search date was March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of daily oral amphetamines versus placebo on blood pressure. There were no restrictions on participants' age or gender. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (measured in millimeters of mercury (mmHg) above atmospheric pressure; continuous outcomes). Secondary outcomes were heart rate (measured as beats per minute; continuous outcome) and withdrawals due to adverse effects (dichotomous outcome). We calculated continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We expressed withdrawals due to adverse effects as a risk ratio with 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model to pool effect sizes from all studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 RCTs with a total of 10,583 participants, both adults and children. Most studies were conducted in North America (mainly the USA), followed by Europe. A few studies took place in Asia (Japan) and Australia. The studies tested racemic amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine (MDMA) and methylphenidate. The amphetamines were prescribed for ADHD, weight loss and other indications. In 48 RCTs, blood pressure was measured within 24 hours of the last dose. Based on data from all included studies, amphetamines increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 1.93 mmHg (95% CI 1.54 to 2.31) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.84 mmHg (95% CI 1.51 to 2.16) (56 studies, 10,583 participants; high-certainty evidence for both). Amphetamines increased heart rate by 3.71 beats per minute (95% CI 3.27 to 4.14; 47 studies, 10,075 participants; high-certainty evidence). In a subgroup analysis limited to studies that gave participants amphetamines for at least eight weeks, the effects were similar, suggesting that these are sustained effects. These findings suggest that people taking daily oral amphetamines are at increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Participants in the amphetamine group were also more likely to withdraw from the study due to adverse effects compared to those given placebo (risk ratio 2.69, 95% CI 2.13 to 3.40; absolute risk increase of 4.3% over an average duration of 1 month; 42 studies, 8952 participants; high-certainty evidence). In general, the studies were well-executed, and the methodology was sound. We judged most studies to have a low risk of bias across most domains. Selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment) was the domain most often rated as at unclear risk of bias, because the methods used were not reported. We judged 13 studies (23%) to have a high risk of bias in at least one of the seven domains, primarily due to high dropout rates, leading to a high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Daily oral amphetamines increase blood pressure, heart rate, and withdrawals due to adverse effects, with these effects observed across all time points, including shorter (≤ four weeks) and longer durations (> four weeks to < eight weeks; ≥ eight weeks) of use. Future trials should measure blood pressure using 24-hour ambulatory monitoring and assess the effect of long-term use.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,004
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,121
Tête enseignante GPT0,480
Écart entre enseignants0,359 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisTravaux en français237 207