ArticlePulmonary circulation
Comparative effectiveness of oral prostacyclin pathway drugs on hospitalization in patients with pulmonary hypertension in the United States: a retrospective database analysis.
Article in Pulmonary circulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of prostacyclin therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Real-World Experience with Selexipag in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Treatment Patterns and Outcomes across Baseline Risk Strata (SPHERE and EXPOSURE Studies).Drugs - real world outcomes · 2026Article
- Transitioning From Parenteral Prostanoids to Oral Selexipag in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Pulmonary circulation · 2025Article
- Oral Prostacyclin Pathway Agents Used in PAH: A Targeted Literature Review.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Review
- Comparison of Healthcare Encounters and Drug Persistence in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Receiving Oral Selexipag, Inhaled Iloprost, or Parenteral Treprostinil: A Retrospective Database Analysis.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two oral medications targeting the prostacyclin pathway are available to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension in the United States: oral treprostinil and selexipag. We compared real-world hospitalization in patients receiving these medications. A retrospective administrative claims study was conducted using the Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart database. Patients with pulmonary hypertension were identified using diagnostic codes. Cohort inclusion required age ≥ 18 years, first oral treprostinil or selexipag prescription between 1 January 2015 and 30 September 2017 (index date), and continuous enrollment in the prior ≥6 months. Patients who switched index drug were excluded. Follow-up was from index date until the first of end of index drug exposure, end of continuous enrollment, death, or 31 December 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and Poisson regression were used to compare risk and rate, respectively, of hospitalization associated with oral treprostinil vs. selexipag, adjusting for potential confounders. The study cohort included 99 patients receiving oral treprostinil and 123 receiving selexipag. Mean age was 61 years, and most patients were females (71%). Compared with oral treprostinil, selexipag was associated with a 46% lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 0.92;
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.