ArticleCureus2025
Outcomes of Calcium-Channel Blocker Use in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Propensity-Matched Study From the Global Federated Health Research Network.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Clinical characteristics and prognosis of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients with hypercalcemia: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell hyperproliferative disorder resulting in a classic presentation including anemia, renal dysfunction, bone pain, and hypercalcemia. Many patients with MM also develop unrelated comorbid conditions, such as hypertension or congestive heart failure, that warrant the prescription of calcium-channel blockers (CCBs). Little is known about how MM-associated hypercalcemia could be impacted by CCB use. This study aimed to determine how CCBs could impact outcomes in patients with MM.
methodsUtilizing TriNetX's US Collaborative Network and ICD-10 codes, we identified adult patients with MM prescribed CCBs and compared them to patients with MM not prescribed CCBs. Cohorts were propensity-matched according to age, sex, race, and comorbidities. We followed these cohorts for five years to assess rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), dialysis initiation (hemodialysis (HD)), seizures, atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL), ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT), ICU admission, and all-cause mortality.
resultsCohorts were propensity-matched with each CCB cohort compared with a group that was not prescribed any CCB. Compared to any CCBs, the MM no CCB cohort had lower rates of AKI (hazard ratio (HR) 0.937, 95% CI 0.911 - 0.964, p<0.0001), HD (HR 0.587, 95% CI 0.551 - 0.625, p<0.0001), seizures (HR 0.823, 95% CI 0.755 - 0.898, p=0.0002), AF/AFL (HR 0.942, 95% CI 0.905 - 0.98, p<0.0001), and VF/VT (HR 0.981, 95% CI 0.901 - 1.076, p<0.0001). The MM no CCB cohort had higher rates of mortality (HR 1.031, 95% CI 1.004 - 1.059, p<0.0001). The MM no amlodipine cohort had lower rates of AKI (HR 1.011, 95% CI 0.98 - 1.044, p<0.0001), HD (HR 0.749, 95% CI 0.698 - 0.803, p<0.0001), seizures (HR 1.034, 95% CI 0.939 - 1.139, p<0.0001), and ICU admission (HR 0.159, 95% CI 0.118 - 0.214, p=0.0367) compared to the amlodipine cohort. The MM no amlodipine cohort had increased risk of AF/AFL (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.371 - 1.513, p<0.0001), VF/VT (HR 1.464, 95% CI 1.322 - 1.62, p<0.0001), and mortality (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.058 - 1.123, p<0.0001). The MM no nicardipine cohort had reduced risk of mortality (HR 0.754, 95% CI 0.633 - 0.899, p=0.0002) compared to the nicardipine cohort. The MM no nifedipine cohort had less risk of HD (HR 0.507, 95% CI 0.402 - 0.639, p=0.0057) and mortality (HR 0.935, 95% CI 0.839 - 1.043, p=0.0395) compared to the nifedipine cohort. The MM no nifedipine cohort had a higher risk of AF/AFL (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.306 - 1.935, p=0.0003) and VF/VT (HR 1.927, 95% CI 1.326 - 2.799, p=0.0012). The MM no diltiazem cohort had lower rates of HD (HR 0.941, 95% CI 0.79 - 1.121, p=0.0256), AF/AFL (HR 0.322, 95% CI 0.293 - 0.353, p<0.0001), and mortality (HR 0.775, 95% CI 0.728 - 0.825, p=0.0006) than the diltiazem cohort. The MM no diltiazem cohort demonstrated higher rates of AKI (HR 1.086, 95% CI 1.005-1.174, p=0.0003). The MM no verapamil cohort had a reduced risk of AF/AFL (HR 0.949, 95% CI 0.798-1.129, p=0.0011) compared to the verapamil cohort. The MM no verapamil cohort had a higher risk of AKI (HR 1.369, 95% CI 1.203 - 1.557, p=0.0001) and HD (HR 1.329, 95% CI 0.985 - 1.795, p=0.0392).
conclusionsEven after risk stratification and propensity-score matching, there appear to be differences in outcomes between patients with MM on various CCBs. The hypercalcemia in MM may be perpetuated by CCBs, leading to poor outcomes in certain patients. These differences warrant further exploration.
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.