ReviewClinical drug investigation2010
Targeted oral therapies in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Review in Clinical drug investigation, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary arterial hypertension: the burden of disease and impact on quality of life.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2015Review
- Effect of transition from sitaxsentan to ambrisentan in pulmonary arterial hypertension.Vascular health and risk management · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have led to the US FDA's approval of eight drugs for its treatment. Although guidelines for the use of PAH therapies are available and regularly updated, there is a lack of information on how these agents differ and what characteristics may enable one agent to be of greater relative clinical utility than another. Oral agents may be compared across a variety of measures, including clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability, dosing and pharmacology, potential for drug interactions, treatment adherence and suitability for use in combination regimens. Although no large, prospective, head-to-head trial has been conducted with oral agents for PAH, data from placebo-controlled studies indicate that the enrolled patient populations were remarkably homogeneous with respect to demographic and disease severity parameters. In general, data suggest that these agents improve functional capacity, delay disease progression and improve haemodynamics. Additionally, long-term sustainability of response has been demonstrated. However, there was no consistently superior agent across the primary and secondary endpoints assessed in these trials, and the magnitudes of improvements were in a fairly defined range across agents. Consequently, treatment choice may shift to other aspects such as drug safety and tolerability, potential for drug interactions, dosing convenience, treatment adherence, effect on quality of life and access to medication. In this review, the four targeted oral agents approved for the treatment of PAH in the US are reviewed, and clinical results are placed into context.
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.