Evidence Hub

Study on the comparison between Bosentan and Macitentan in the treatment of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborns, simultaneously on sildenafil: A randomized double-blinded non-inferiority parallel clinical trial

Kashaki M, Mohazzab A, Radgoudarzi M, Bordbar A, Dabbagh S

Pediatrics and neonatology, 2025

30 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) is characterized by sustained elevated Pulmonary Artery Pressure (PAP). Drug resistance and the adverse effects of current therapeutic agents warrant investigation of other targeted therapies. Bosentan has shown benefits in affected neonates. However, trials reported the association with unwanted effects. Thus, in this study, we assess another agent in the same family, Macitentan. However, its efficacy in the treatment of PPHN is not yet reported. Hence, this study evaluated the effect of Macitentan compared to Bosentan in terms of efficacy and safety in the treatment of PPHN.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blinded non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted in Shahid Akbar Abadi hospital, Tehran, Iran. Sixty clinically stable neonates with signs suggestive of PPHN were randomly allocated into two groups (n = 30 in each group) and they received either Bosentan 1 mg/kg/dose BD (twice daily) or Macitentan 1 mg/kg/dose BD simultaneously with sildenafil. The echocardiographic and laboratory indices of efficacy and safety were compared between groups. SPAP (systolic pulmonary artery pressure) was used to assess the non-inferiority of the Macitentan compared to the Bosentan in their respective doses used in the study.

RESULTS

Participants' mean (SD) age was 3.53 (1.21) days, and 55% were female. No mortality case occurred. SPAP was reduced in both Bosentan and Macitenan groups with the mean difference in SPAP of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 30 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