Evidence Hub

The Clinical Efficacy of Pulmonary Hypertension-Specific Agents in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

Lee J, Song JU

Journal of Korean medical science, 2020

2,124 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is common in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and is associated with poor outcomes. This study was performed to determine the clinical efficacy of PH-specific therapeutic agents for IPF patients.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register. We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without language restriction until November 2018. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality to end of study.

Results: We analyzed 10 RCTs involving 2,124 patients, 1,274 of whom received PH-specific agents. In pooled estimates, the use of PH-specific agents was not significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality to end of study compared with controls (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92, 1.06; P = 0.71; I² = 30%). When we performed subgroup analyses according to the type of PH-specific agent, sample size, age, forced vital capacity, diffusion lung capacity, and the extent of honeycombing, PH-specific agents also showed no significant association with a reduction in all-cause mortality. A small but significant improvement in quality of life, measured using the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire total score, was found in the PH-specific agent group (mean difference, -3.16 points; 95% CI, -5.34, -0.97; P = 0.005; I² = 0%). We found no significant changes from baseline in lung function, dyspnea, or exercise capacity. Serious adverse…

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: 2,124 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