Evidence Hub

Is low-risk status a surrogate outcome in pulmonary arterial hypertension? An analysis of three randomised trials

Blette BS, Moutchia J, Al-Naamani N, Ventetuolo CE, Cheng C, Appleby D, Urbanowicz RJ, Fritz J et al.

The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2023

2,508 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

Background: Targeting short-term improvements in multicomponent risk scores for mortality in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) could result in improved long-term outcomes. We aimed to determine whether PAH risk scores were adequate surrogates for clinical worsening or mortality outcomes in PAH randomised clinical trials (RCTs).

Methods: We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis of RCTs selected from PAH trials provided by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We calculated predicted risk using the COMPERA, COMPERA 2.0, non-invasive FPHR, REVEAL 2.0, and REVEAL Lite 2 risk scores. The primary outcome of interest was time to clinical worsening, a composite endpoint composed of any of the following events: all-cause death, hospitalisation for worsening PAH, lung transplantation, atrial septostomy, discontinuation of study treatment (or study withdrawal) for worsening PAH, initiation of parenteral prostacyclin analogue therapy, or decrease of at least 15% in 6-min walk distance from baseline, combined with either worsening of WHO functional class from baseline or the addition of an approved PAH treatment. The secondary outcome of interest was time to all-cause mortality. We assessed the surrogacy of these risk scores, parameterised as attainment of low-risk status by 16 weeks, for improvement in long-term clinical worsening and survival using mediation and meta-analysis frameworks.

Findings: Of 28 trials received from the FDA, three RCTs…

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: 2,508 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