Evidence Hub

The specific medications for pulmonary arterial hypertension at functional class III to IV: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Li Q, Kuang H, Yi Q, Du H

Frontiers in medicine, 2024

553 participants

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of targeted drugs in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) with cardiac function grades III-IV, and conduct a meta-analysis.

Methods: Two researchers independently searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies, with the search period extending from the establishment of the databases to March 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using statistical software Review Manager 5.4. Heterogeneity among studies was analyzed using either a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model. When the I2 value was p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 553 patients with PAH and cardiac function grades III-IV were ultimately included. Three RCTs targeted the endothelin pathway, five targeted the prostacyclin pathway, and two assessed the effects of combination therapy. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis revealed that short-term monotherapy with bosentan significantly improved 6MWD by ~53.67 m (95% CI: [43.57, 63.77] meters, p p p = 0.04) and -1.26 (95% CI = [-2.21, -0.32], p = 0.009), respectively. Analysis of the clinical efficacy of combination therapy in PAH patients revealed that while it did not significantly improve 6MWD, cardiac function improved in ~59.1% of patients (95% CI=[38.5%, 79.6%]). Safety analysis indicated that combination targeted therapy did not significantly increase the incidence of…

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: 553 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