Metabolic and Inflammatory Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Amlodipine: A Descriptive and Disproportionality Analysis of EudraVigilance Reports

Background/Objectives: The global rise in obesity-related hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and chronic inflammation calls for a precise characterization of the safety profiles of first-line therapies. While amlodipine is considered metabolically neutral, its real-world impact on dysglycemia and inflammatory biomarkers remains incompletely defined. This study aims to characterize the metabolic and inflammatory adverse drug reaction profile of amlodipine, using the EudraVigilance database. Methods: Descriptive and disproportionality analyses were performed on 41,872 Individual Case Safety Reports recorded prior to 17 May 2026. Amlodipine was compared against major antihypertensive classes (beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, sartans, and diuretics), calculating reporting odds ratios (ROR) and 95% confidence intervals. Results: “Hyperglycaemia” could be considered a safety signal for amlodipine, compared to beta-blockers (e.g., bisoprolol—ROR: 2.56), ACE inhibitors (e.g., ramipril—ROR: 2.82), and sartans (e.g., candesartan—ROR: 3.85). “Metabolic syndrome” was reported for amlodipine with a lower probability than for hydrochlorothiazide (ROR: 0.35). Inflammatory signals (e.g., increased C-reactive protein) appeared less frequently for amlodipine than for certain renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors (e.g., perindopril—ROR: 0.53). Conclusions: The disproportionality analysis identified relatively lower reporting frequencies for several metabolic and inflammatory adverse drug reactions, compared with selected antihypertensive agents. These findings represent pharmacovigilance signals that warrant further investigation in analytical epidemiological and clinical studies. Although hyperglycemia was reported disproportionally relative to several comparator drugs, reports of T2DM were less frequently reported for amlodipine. However, these observations should not be interpreted as evidence of differences in clinical risk, because disproportionality analyses cannot establish incidence or causality. Reports of inflammation likely reflect patient comorbidities rather than a direct drug effect. These findings demonstrate that post-marketing surveillance remains essential, even when accounting for the methodological limitations of spontaneous reporting.