Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy and safety of prostacyclin therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Saleh KM, Mallat J, Mohammed S, Bodi G, Alazazzi H, Salim S, Elhennawi M, Iqbal T et al.

Frontiers in medicine, 2025

7,819 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive, fatal cardiopulmonary disorder characterized by elevated pulmonary vascular resistance leading to right heart failure. Current treatment utilizes pathway-specific vasodilators, including numerous prostacyclin therapies with diverse delivery methods. Despite available options, head-to-head studies comparing these treatments remain scarce.

Aim: This network meta-analysis seeks to systematically evaluate all prostacyclin-based PAH therapies to guide clinical decision-making regarding treatment selection.

Methods: We implemented a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis (NWM). For continuous outcomes, we calculated pooled mean differences (MD), whereas risk ratios (RR) were determined for binary endpoints. All estimates incorporated 95% confidence intervals. Results achieving p-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: Our NWM comprising 32 studies (N = 7,819) revealed significant mortality reduction with treprostinil versus placebo (RR 0.66, 95%CI 0.49-0.90), while epoprostenol transitioned demonstrated superior survival benefit (P-score 0.78). For functional capacity, epoprostenol exhibited the greatest 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) improvement (46.84 m, 95%CI 21.90-71.78; P-score 0.90) versus placebo. Hemodynamically, epoprostenol achieved optimal Pulmonary Arterial Pressure (PAP) reduction (-6.29 mmHg, 95%CI -6.99 to -5.59; P-score 0.95), while iloprost demonstrated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. 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: 7,819 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