Evidence Hub

Infectious, inflammatory, and clinical outcomes among patients prescribed trifluoperazine or amoxapine: a retrospective cohort study using real-world data

Malik O, Rodriguez-Fernandez J, Yakubu AO, Farrag W, Miranda-Morales EG, Dann SM, Chopra AK, Fang X

Frontiers in medicine, 2026

834 participants

Abstract

Introduction: The rise of antimicrobial resistance and limited development of new antibiotics have increased interest in drug repurposing. Preclinical evidence suggests that certain psychotropic drugs, including trifluoperazine (TFP) and amoxapine (AXPN), possess antimicrobial or immunomodulatory properties. However, their effects on infection risk in clinical populations are largely unknown. This study evaluated whether TFP or AXPN use is associated with altered risks of infectious illnesses, systemic inflammation, and mortality compared to patients not taking antidepressants.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized TriNetX, a federated network of de-identified electronic health records from over 75 million patients. Patients prescribed TFP, AXPN, fluoxetine, or no antidepressants/antipsychotics (general control) were assigned to mutually exclusive cohorts. Age- and sex-matched comparisons were conducted for four groups. Assessed outcomes included bacterial and viral infections (e.g., Clostridioides difficile), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, an etiological agent of COVID-19, as well as for pneumonia and sepsis, inflammatory markers (C-Reactive Protein, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate, ferritin, and procalcitonin), Intensive Care Unit admission, and mortality. Risk ratios (RR), odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed for significant findings.

Results: Overall, 2,177 TFP and 834 AXPN patients met…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 834 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free