ReviewClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Oral Prostacyclin Pathway Agents Used in PAH: A Targeted Literature Review.
Review in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Updates in Pulmonary Hypertension.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Safety and pharmacokinetics of ralinepag, a novel oral prostacyclin receptor agonist.JHLT open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare and progressive pulmonary vascular disease that can result in right heart failure and death. Oral prostacyclins play an important role in the management of intermediate-low risk PAH. This targeted literature review (TLR) aimed to identify and compare evidence supporting use of oral prostacyclin pathway agents (PPAs: selexipag and oral treprostinil) in intermediate-low risk PAH. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted. Literature databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane reviews) were searched for studies describing clinical practice and treatment outcomes for oral treprostinil and selexipag globally, published in English (2012 to 2022). Electronic searches were supplemented by manual-searches of targeted conferences (2020 to 2022), and reference lists of identified publications were reviewed. One reviewer assessed studies for eligibility. Results: In total, 95 publications met inclusion criteria: 47 full-text articles (selexipag n = 22; oral treprostinil n = 16; selexipag and oral treprostinil n = 9) and 48 conference materials. Selexipag and oral treprostinil target the prostacyclin pathway differently; their label-supporting trials had different primary endpoints (disease progression and hospitalization vs exercise capacity and disease progression), differing baseline therapy (0, 1 or 2 vs 0 or 1 baseline treatments), titration duration and dosing (personalized dose capped at 1600 ug twice daily (BID) vs increasing doses over time with no maximum dose), respectively. While both oral PPAs have demonstrated reduced risk of disease progression, only selexipag showed reduction in hospitalization rates. Oral PPAs have been shown to reduce healthcare costs in real-world clinical practice. This difference is reflected in labeled indications. Conclusion: Given differences in trial- and real-world outcomes, number of prior therapies, and dosing, personalizing the choice of oral PPA is critical to maximizing the benefit for individual patients.
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.