ArticleESC heart failure2025
Mono and combination therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients with comorbidities: A COMPERA analysis.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing treatment decisions in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension.Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026Article
- Phenotypic Clustering of Idiopathic Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Insights Into Pulmonary Vascular and Cardiometabolic Co-Morbidity Trajectories.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- Clinical research on pulmonary hypertension from a 2025 perspective: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Mechanistic gaps and statistical considerations in pulmonary heart disease: Insights from PAH combination therapy studies.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Mono and combination therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients with comorbidities: A COMPERA analysis.ESC heart failure · 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is often diagnosed in elderly patients with comorbidities. Although initial monotherapy is recommended for these patients, the value of combination therapy remains unclear. Here, we compare the efficacy of initial monotherapy and combination therapy in PAH patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. METHODS AND
resultsData from adult patients with incident pre-capillary PAH and cardiovascular comorbidities from the COMPERA database (European registry for PH) were analysed. A matched-pair analysis of patients treated with monotherapy versus combination therapy based on age, sex, WHO functional class (FC) and 4-strata risk at baseline was performed. The matching strategy identified 216 pairs of PAH patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, who differed considerably from the enrolled patient population (n = 1871), especially in terms of mean age (mono: matched pairs 62.9 ± 13.5 years vs. 70.6 ± 11.4 years, combination: matched pairs 62.0 ± 13.6 years vs. 60.5 ± 14.9 years). In the matched-pair analysis, the initial combination therapy group showed more pronounced improvements in WHO-FC, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP/NT-proBNP) and risk status than patients treated with initial monotherapy, with no significant differences in 6-min walk distance (6MWD), PAH-related hospitalisations, survival and drug discontinuation.
conclusionsThis analysis suggests that PAH patients with comorbidities may benefit more pronounced from combination therapy regarding WHO-FC, BNP/NT-pro-BNP and risk status without a significant difference in survival. Good tolerability is indicated. However, given the relatively younger patient matched subgroup, these findings may not necessarily apply to older patients with a wider range of comorbidities.
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.