Evidence Hub

Safety and Efficacy of Immunoadsorption as an Add-On to Medical Treatment in Patients with Severe Idiopathic Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

Nagel C, Ewert R, Egenlauf B, Lehmkuhl HB, Rosenkranz S, Benjamin N, Schwenger V, Herth FJF et al.

Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases, 2017

10 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Despite optimized medical therapy, severe idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) is a devastating disease with a poor outcome. Autoantibodies have been detected in IPAH that can contribute to worsening of the disease.

Objectives: The objective of this prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of immunoadsorption (IA) as an add-on to optimized medical treatment for patients with IPAH.

Methods: A total of 10 IPAH patients received IA over 5 days. Their clinical parameters, including hemodynamics measured by right heart catheter, were assessed at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. The primary endpoint was the change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). Secondary endpoints included the change in 6-min walking distance, quality of life, safety, and plasma levels of IgG and autoantibodies.

Results: The evaluation of the 10 IPAH patients (75% female; 51 ± 12 years; 166 ± 10 cm; WHO functional class III; 53% on combination therapy) revealed that IA was a safe procedure that efficiently removed IgG and autoantibodies from the circulation. After 3 months, the mean PVR improved significantly by 13.2% (p = 0.03) and the cardiac index improved by 13.1%, but no significant changes were found in 6-min walking distance. The quality of life physical functioning subscale score significantly improved after 6 months. The serious adverse events in 3 patients were possibly related to IA and included pneumonia,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 10 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