20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Interventions for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

      research-article
      , MD a , , , MD b , , MD, SM c , , MD f , , PhD g , , MD g , , MALS d , , MD e , , MD h , , MD e
      Chest
      American College of Chest Physicians
      comparative efficacy, network meta-analysis, pulmonary arterial hypertension, 6MWD, 6-min walk distance, ERA, endothelin receptor antagonist, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Education, NYHA, New York Heart Association, PAH, pulmonary arterial hypertension, PDE5i, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor, RCT, randomized controlled trial, RR, risk ratio, SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking area, WHO, World Health Organization, WMD, weighted mean difference

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to examine comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic interventions for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).

          Methods

          MEDLINE, the Cochrane Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched (January 1, 1990 to March 3, 2016). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the approved pharmacologic agents endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDE5i), the oral/inhaled (PO/INH) and IV/subcutaneous (SC) prostanoids, and riociguat and selexipag, alone or in combination, for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and reporting at least one efficacy outcome were selected.

          Results

          Thirty-one RCTs with 6,565 patients were selected. In network meta-analysis, when compared with a median placebo rate of 14.5%, clinical worsening was estimated at 2.8% with riociguat (risk ratio [RR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.76); at 3.9% with ERA + PDE5i (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.52), and at 5.7% with PDE5i (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.62). For improvement in functional status, when compared with 16.2% in the placebo group, improvement in at least one New York Heart Association/World Health Organization (NYHA/WHO) functional class was estimated at 81.8% with IV/SC prostanoids (RR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.3211.04), at 28.3% with ERA + PDE5i (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.05-2.92), and at 25.2% with ERA (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.22-2.00). Differences in mortality were not significant. Adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy were highest with the PO/INH prostanoids (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.68-5.06) and selexipag (RR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-3.88) compared with placebo.

          Conclusions

          Currently approved pharmacologic agents have varying effects on morbidity and functional status in patients with PAH. Future comparative effectiveness trials are warranted with a focus on a patient-centered approach to therapy.

          Registration

          PROSPERO CRD42016036803

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Contributors
          Journal
          Chest
          Chest
          Chest
          American College of Chest Physicians
          0012-3692
          1931-3543
          January 2017
          09 September 2016
          : 151
          : 1
          : 90-105
          Affiliations
          [a ]Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
          [b ]Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
          [c ]Division of Cardiology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA
          [d ]Hardin Library for the Health Sciences, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA
          [e ]Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Occupational Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA
          [f ]Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
          [g ]Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit and the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
          [h ]Division of Biomedical Informatics, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA
          Author notes
          [] CORRESPONDENCE TO: Snigdha Jain, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center5323 Harry Hines BlvdDallasTX 75390 snigdha.jain@ 123456utsouthwestern.edu
          Article
          PMC5310124 PMC5310124 5310124 S0012-3692(16)58957-0
          10.1016/j.chest.2016.08.1461
          5310124
          27615023
          dad271b9-d992-4d5f-9d1b-771a7bd699ad
          © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
          History
          Categories
          Original Research: Pulmonary Vascular Disease

          comparative efficacy,network meta-analysis,pulmonary arterial hypertension,6MWD, 6-min walk distance,ERA, endothelin receptor antagonist,FDA, Food and Drug Administration,GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Education,NYHA, New York Heart Association,PAH, pulmonary arterial hypertension,PDE5i, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor,RCT, randomized controlled trial,RR, risk ratio,SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking area,WHO, World Health Organization,WMD, weighted mean difference

          Comments

          Comment on this article