Evidence Hub

Systematic review of randomised, double-blind clinical trials of oral agents conducted in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension

Torres F

International journal of clinical practice, 2007

100 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Therapies have become available in the last decade that may provide more than symptomatic benefit in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). With choices for possible therapy, it is important to compare the results observed in randomised, double-blind clinical trials. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the published results for the different oral therapeutic agents for the treatment of PAH.

METHODS: US Food and Drug Administration-approved agents, as well as agents for which a New Drug Application has been submitted, were included in this review. Fifteen randomised, double-blind studies (one study examined both sildenafil and bosentan) were found for the different oral agents: sildenafil, four studies; bosentan, six studies; sitaxsentan, three studies; and ambrisentan, three studies. Most randomised, double-blind studies conducted in patients with PAH have been small (< 100 patients overall) and of short duration (12 or 16 weeks).

RESULTS: In the clinical trials, all oral therapeutic agents improved exercise ability as measured by the 6-min walk distance; however, other clinically relevant end-points were not improved consistently by all agents, e.g. time to clinical worsening and WHO functional class.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 100 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