Cardiovascular adverse events associated with norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitors: a pharmacovigilance study of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Norepinephrine-dopamine reputake inhibitors (NDRIs), including bupropion, methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and reboxetine, are commonly prescribed for psychiatric disorders such as narcolepsy, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and depression. Cardiovascular adverse events have been reported to the FDA despite their effectiveness. This pharmacovigilance study analyzed cardiovascular adverse events associated with NDRIs using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System data from January 2004 to December 2021. A retrospective analysis of adverse event reports was conducted, employing time-trend analysis and disproportionality evaluation to assess cardiovascular risks. Bupropion had the greatest reported odds ratios (RORs) for tachycardia (ROR = 4.2, 95% CI: 4.0-4.4) and hypertension (ROR = 3.5, 95% CI: 3.3-3.7), while methylphenidate showed greater ROR for arrhythmias (ROR = 2.8, 95% CI: 2.6-3.0) and palpitations (ROR = 3.1, 95% CI: 2.9-3.3). Reboxetine had signals for palpitations (ROR = 3.0, 95% CI: 2.8-3.2) and myocardial infarction (ROR = 2.7, 95% CI: 2.5-2.9), whereas atomoxetine revealed signals for hypertension (ROR = 2.9, 95% CI: 2.7-3.1) and syncope (ROR = 2.5, 95% CI: 2.3-2.7). Time-trend analysis revealed temporal variability in the cardiovascular risks connected with NDRIs. Our research elucidates cardiovascular safety profiles for NDRIs, highlighting the necessity for continuous pharmacovigilance. The observed variations in adverse events emphasize the need for ongoing surveillance to mitigate potential cardiovascular risks and enhance patient safety and treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".