Evidence Hub

Sildenafil for pulmonary hypertension: need for evidence generation

Shafiq N, Reddy S, Pandhi P, Manoj R, Talwar KK, Malhotra S

International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008

190 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis was conducted with the aim of comparing the usefulness of sildenafil for the management of pulmonary hypertension (PH).

METHODS: A systematic electronic and manual search was conducted to retrieve all published and unpublished randomized clinical trials of sildenafil in PH. Pertinent data related to various outcomes were extracted. Sildenafil was planned for comparison with placebo, prostacyclin analogs and endothelin receptor antagonists. For continuous data weighted mean difference was used while fixed or random effects models were used for dichotomous data. Revman (Version 4.2) was used for all calculations.

RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 190 patients were included in the final analysis. As compared to placebo sildenafil showed a significant improvement in 6-min walk test (68.90 (95% CI 31.14 - 106.65), p = 0.0003), mean pulmonary artery pressure (-13.04 (95% CI - 25.94 to -0.15), p = 0.05), mean cardiac index (0.39 (95% CI 0.24 - 0.54), p < 0.00001), mean Borg dyspnea score (-1.23 (95% CI -1.36 to -1.10), p < 0.00001), mean pulmonary vascular resistance (-171 (95% CI -300 to -30.90), p = 0.02), improvement in functional class (6.48 (95% CI 2.74 - 15.33), p < 0.001) and a nonsignificant change in mean right atrial pressure and clinical worsening. No study satisfied inclusion criteria for comparison with prostacyclin analogs. In comparison with bosentan, sildenafil did not show a significant difference for any of the clinical…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 190 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free