Patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension with and without cardiovascular risk factors: Results from the AMBITION trial
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension enrolled in the AMBITION trial with (excluded from the primary analysis set [ex-primary analysis set]) and without (primary analysis set) multiple risk factors for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction.
Methods: Treatment-naive patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension were randomized to once-daily ambrisentan and tadalafil combination therapy, ambrisentan monotherapy, or tadalafil monotherapy. The primary end point was time from randomization to first adjudicated clinical failure event.
Results: Primary analysis set patients (n = 500), compared with ex-primary analysis set patients (n = 105), were younger (mean, 54.4 vs 62.1 years) with greater baseline 6-minute walk distance (median, 363.7 vs 330.5 meters) and fewer comorbidities (e.g., hypertension and diabetes). Treatment effects of initial combination therapy vs pooled monotherapy were directionally the same for both populations, albeit of a lower magnitude for ex-primary analysis set patients. Initial combination therapy reduced the risk of clinical failure compared with pooled monotherapy in primary analysis set patients (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.72), whereas the effect was less clear in ex-primary analysis set patients (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.37). Overall, primary analysis set patients had fewer clinical failure events (25% vs 33%), higher rates 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: 500 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
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.