Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37356711›Full record

ArticleChest2023

Do Patients With Low-Risk Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Really Benefit From Upfront Combination Therapy?: Insight From the AMBITION Trial.

Charles Fauvel, Yongqi Liu, Priscilla Correa-Jaque, Manreet K Kanwar, Carmine Dario Vizza, Shili Lin, Raymond L Benza

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Charles FauvelDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; Department of Cardiology, Normandie University, UNIROUEN, Rouen, France.
Yongqi LiuDepartment of Statistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Priscilla Correa-JaqueDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Manreet K KanwarCardiovascular Institute, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA.
Carmine Dario VizzaPulmonary Hypertension Unit, University of Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy.
Shili LinDepartment of Cardiology, Normandie University, UNIROUEN, Rouen, France.
Raymond L BenzaICAHN School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Heart, New York, New York. Electronic address: chenza.consulting@gmail.com.
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USAllegheny Health Network · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USNormandie Université · FRSapienza University of Rome · ITThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

PHORA-Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Risk AssessmentR01HL164906 · NHLBI · SENTARA HEALTH · PI RAYMOND Louis Benza · 2022 to 2026
$3.0M
PHORA: A Clinical Decision Support Tool for Patients with Pulmonary Arterial HypertensionR01HL134673 · NHLBI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BENZA, RAYMOND LOUIS · 2017 to 2020
$2.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL134673NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL164906
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBased on results of the Ambrisentan and Tadalafil in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (AMBITION) trial, upfront combination therapy is recommended for treatment-naive patients with low-risk pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, conflicting data exist whether adopting this treatment strategy in this risk group is beneficial or well tolerated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do patients with low-risk PAH really benefit from upfront combination therapy? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsUsing the data from the original AMBITION trial, patients with PAH were classified as low, intermediate, or high risk using the Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-term PAH Disease Management 2.0 (REVEAL 2.0) score and the Pulmonary Hypertension Outcomes and Risk Assessment (PHORA) tool. The primary end point was time to clinical worsening (including death, hospitalization for PAH worsening, and disease progression) censored at 1- and 3-year post-enrollment. Side effects that led to withdrawal of treatment were also considered.

resultsPatients with low-risk PAH categorized by REVEAL 2.0 and PHORA did not see a statistically significant benefit of upfront combination therapy vs monotherapy for time to clinical worsening at 1 and 3 years' post-enrollment using Cox proportional analysis (3-year hazard ratio of 0.40 [95% CI, 0.15-1.06; P = .07] and 0.55 [95% CI, 0.26-1.18; P = .12] for REVEAL 2.0 and PHORA, respectively) or considering time to clinical worsening or side effects (3-year hazard ratio of 0.75 [95% CI, 0.39-1.47; P = .4] and 0.87 [95% CI, 0.49-1.54; P = .63] for REVEAL 2.0 and PHORA). Patients with low-risk PAH on upfront combination therapy experienced a higher but not significant incidence of side effects using REVEAL 2.0 and PHORA. In contrast, patients at intermediate or high risk saw a statistically significant benefit of upfront combination therapy considering each of the end points regardless of side effects.

interpretationThis analysis suggests that perhaps some patients with low-risk PAH should be further stratified using other modalities prior to committing to upfront combination therapy, especially when the occurrence of side effects is considered. Further prospective data are needed to validate this hypothesis prior to changes in current guideline directed therapy are contemplated.

Indexed as

Hypertension, PulmonaryPulmonary Arterial HypertensionAntihypertensive AgentsDrug Therapy, CombinationFamilial Primary Pulmonary HypertensionHumansRisk AssessmentTadalafilAntihypertensive AgentsTadalafilbenefit-risk balancecombination therapypulmonary arterial hypertensionrisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID37356711
PMCPMC10716797
OpenAlexW4381893399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.