ArticleLung2019
Bosentan or Macitentan Therapy in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension?
Article in Lung, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary artery targeted therapy in treatment of COVID-19 related ARDS. Literature review.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2022Review
- Does combination therapy work in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension?International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveResearch comparing bosentan and macitentan in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is scarce, although macitentan might have superior pharmacologic properties. We present the first real-world, 2-year follow-up results and compare clinical outcomes of both drugs in CTEPH.
methodsAll consecutive, technical inoperable or residual CTEPH patients receiving bosentan or macitentan, diagnosed in our multidisciplinary team between January 2003 and January 2019, were included. We report and compare survival, clinical worsening (CW), adverse events, WHO FC, NT-proBNP and 6-min walking test (6MWT) until 2 years after medication initiation.
resultsIn total, 112 patients receiving bosentan or macitentan (58% female, mean age 62 ± 14 years, 68% WHO FC III/IV, 51% bosentan) could be included. Mean treatment duration was 1.9 ± 0.4 years for bosentan and 1.2 ± 0.6 years for macitentan. Two-year survival rate was 91% for bosentan and 80% for macitentan (HR mortality macitentan 1.85 [0.56-6.10], p = 0.31). Two-year CW-free survival was 81% and 58%, respectively (HR CW macitentan 2.16 [0.962-4.87], p = 0.06). Right atrial pressure, cardiac output (for mortality alone) and 6MWT lowest saturation were multivariate predictors at baseline. Overall adverse event rates were comparable and WHO FC, NT-proBNP and 6MWT distance improved similar for both drugs till 2-year follow-up.
conclusionCTEPH patients receiving bosentan or macitentan have improved clinical outcomes till 2-year follow-up, without significant differences in outcomes between both therapies.
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.