Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30923187›Full record

Trial reportThe European respiratory journal2019

Risk assessment in pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.

Marc Humbert, Harrison W Farber, Hossein-Ardeschir Ghofrani, Raymond L Benza, Dennis Busse, Christian Meier, Marius M Hoeper

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European respiratory journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment. A new era.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Marc HumbertUniversity Paris-Sud, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0703-2892
Harrison W FarberDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Hossein-Ardeschir GhofraniUniversity of Giessen and Marburg Lung Center, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Giessen, Germany.
Raymond L BenzaCardiovascular Institute, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Dennis BusseChrestos Concept GmbH & Co. KG, Essen, Germany.
Christian MeierBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Marius M HoeperClinic for Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9086-2293
Allegheny General Hospital · USBayer (Germany) · DEGerman Center for Lung Research · DEInserm · FRMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DETufts Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent pulmonary hypertension treatment guidelines recommend use of a risk stratification model encompassing a range of parameters, allowing patients to be categorised as low, intermediate or high risk. Three abbreviated versions of this risk stratification model were previously evaluated in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in the French, Swedish and COMPERA registries. Our objective was to investigate the three abbreviated risk stratification methods for patients with mostly prevalent PAH and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), in patients from the PATENT-1/2 and CHEST-1/2 studies of riociguat.

methodsRisk was assessed at baseline and at follow-up in PATENT-1 and CHEST-1. Survival and clinical worsening-free survival were assessed in patients in each risk group/strata.

resultsWith all three methods, riociguat improved risk group/strata in patients with PAH after 12 weeks. The French non-invasive and Swedish/COMPERA methods discriminated prognosis for survival and clinical worsening-free survival at both baseline and follow-up. Furthermore, patients achieving one or more low-risk criteria or a low-risk stratum at follow-up had a significantly reduced risk of death and clinical worsening compared with patients achieving no low-risk criteria or an intermediate-risk stratum. Similar results were obtained in patients with inoperable or persistent/recurrent CTEPH.

conclusionsThis analysis confirms and extends the results of the registry analyses, supporting the value of goal-oriented treatment in PAH. Further assessment of these methods in patients with CTEPH is warranted.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentAdultAgedChronic DiseaseEuropeFemaleHumansHypertension, PulmonaryMaleMiddle AgedPulmonary Arterial HypertensionPyrazolesPyrimidinesRegistriesRisk FactorsSurvival AnalysisPyrazolesPyrimidinesriociguat

Identifiers

PMID30923187
PMCPMC6551213
OpenAlexW2931802930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.