ArticlePulmonary therapy2023
Comparative Treatment Persistence and Adherence to Endothelin Receptor Antagonists Among Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Japan: A Real-World Administrative Claims Database Study.
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative clinical evaluation of endothelin receptor antagonists in pulmonary arterial hypertension using a multi-criteria decision analysis framework.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Article
- Management of pulmonary hypertension in special conditions.The European respiratory journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReal-world data on the comparative effectiveness of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs; macitentan, bosentan, ambrisentan) for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), particularly in Asian countries, are scarce. We evaluated the persistence of these ERAs before and after macitentan approval in Japan (2015).
methodsWe used real-world data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision administrative claims database between April 2008 and November 2020. Patients with PAH were identified from the dataset. Persistence to ERA treatment before and after approval of macitentan in Japan was defined as the time between start of the index ERA and treatment discontinuation or death. Propensity score adjustment was applied to minimize confounding effects among treatment groups.
resultsIn the pre-macitentan approval cohort, 153 and 51 patients received bosentan and ambrisentan, respectively. In the post-macitentan approval cohort, 331, 284, and 91 patients received macitentan, bosentan, and ambrisentan, respectively. Unadjusted median persistence for ambrisentan- and bosentan-treated patients was 19 and 10 months, respectively (adjusted HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.61-1.24]; P = 0.434 [bosentan as reference]). In the post-macitentan approval cohort, unadjusted median persistence was 18 months for macitentan-treated patients versus 6 and 8 months for ambrisentan- and bosentan-treated patients, respectively. Adjusted HRs for ambrisentan and bosentan were 1.48 (95% CI 1.12-1.95; P = 0.006) and 1.63 (95% CI 1.30-2.04; P < 0.001 [macitentan as reference]), respectively.
conclusionsReal-world data for Japanese patients with PAH showed that persistence was significantly higher for macitentan, versus ambrisentan and bosentan, since its approval.
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.