MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of amphetamines on blood pressure

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

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboBlood pressureAdverse effectHeart rateMeta-analysisConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialRelative riskClinical trialPhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207