ArticleBasic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology2022
Use of chlorprothixene and the risk of diabetes and major adverse cardiovascular events: A nationwide cohort study.
Article in Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- From blood to brain: postmortem brain concentrations and brain-blood ratios of chlorprothixene, clozapine, olanzapine, and quetiapine.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2026Article
- FDA-approved drugs containing dimethylamine pharmacophore: a review of the last 50 years.RSC advances · 2024Review
- Anesthetized animal experiments for neuroscience research.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2024Review
- Impact of low-dose quetiapine-use on glycosylated hemoglobin, triglyceride and cholesterol levels.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Use of chlorprothixene and the risk of diabetes and major adverse cardiovascular events: A nationwide cohort study.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chlorprothixene is commonly used off-label in low doses for sedative-hypnotic purposes although it might carry a risk of cardiometabolic adverse events due to its pharmacodynamic profile. We investigated the risk of diabetes and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with use of low-dose chlorprothixene, compared with use of low-dose quetiapine in a nationwide cohort study, including all new users of low-dose chlorprothixene (n = 81 328) and low-dose quetiapine (n = 91 163) in Denmark 2000-2017. Main outcomes were diabetes and MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke and death from cardiovascular causes). The association between cumulative dose of chlorprothixene and the outcomes was tested in a case-control analysis. Low-dose chlorprothixene use was associated with increased risk of diabetes (intention-to-treat [ITT]-hazard ratio [HR]: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.08-1.25), compared with low-dose quetiapine use. This association strengthened when follow-up was restricted to time on treatment (as-treated [AT]-HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.14-1.56). Low-dose chlorprothixene use was also associated with increased risk of MACE (ITT-HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.04-1.21) and stroke (ITT-HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.06-1.37) but not with myocardial infarction (ITT-HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.95-1.30) nor death from cardiovascular causes (ITT-HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.96-1.20). Cumulative dose of chlorprothixene ≥6000 mg was associated with increased risk of diabetes (OR: 1.15-1.63; test for trend: p < 0.001), whereas cumulative dose of chlorprothixene ≥1500 mg was associated with increased risk of MACE (OR: 1.10-1.85; test for trend: p < 0.001). In conclusion, low-dose chlorprothixene use is associated with increased risk of cardiometabolic adverse events compared with low-dose quetiapine use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.