Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of switching from bosentan or ambrisentan to macitentan in pulmonary arterial hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Li J, Yang ZY, Wang S, Yuan P, Zhao QH, Gong SG, Qiu HL, Luo CJ et al.

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022

408 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Background: There is little evidence of the effectiveness of switching from the endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) bosentan and ambrisentan to a novel ERA, macitentan, in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of patients with PAH switching from other ERAs to macitentan.

Methods: We retrieved the relevant literature published before January 2022 for the meta-analysis from the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Efficacy included changes in the 6-min walk distance (6MWD), World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, hemodynamics, echocardiography and survival.

Results: Nine studies, consisting of 408 PAH patients, that met the inclusion criteria were included. The switch from bosentan or ambrisentan to macitentan effectively increased the 6MWD by 20.71 m (95% CI: 10.35-31.07, P I 2 = 0%). Six months after conversion, the tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion was found to improve from 19.0 ± 4.0 to 21.0 ± 5.0 mm in adults and from 16.00 ± 5.0 to 18.25 ± 4.8 mm in children. Ordinal logistic regression showed that the WHO-FC significantly improved by 0.412 (95% CI: 0.187-0.908, P = 0.028). The switch did not show significant improvement in NT-proBNP levels. In addition, the switch was well tolerated.

Conclusion: The switch from bosentan or ambrisentan to macitentan significantly…

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: 408 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