Evidence Hub

Macitentan in the Treatment of Digital Ulcers in Patients with Systemic Rheumatic Autoimmune Diseases: A National Multicenter Study of 42 Patients

Retuerto-Guerrero M, Moriano Morales C, Castellvi Barranco I, Godoy Tundido MH, Méndez Perles C, de la Puente Bujidos C, Pareja Martínez AS, Garijo Bufort M et al.

Journal of clinical medicine, 2025

42 participants

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the real-world safety and efficacy of macitentan (MACI) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) and refractory digital ulcers (DUs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of 42 patients treated with MACI (10 mg/day) on a compassionate-use basis across Spanish reference hospitals. Given the cohort's heterogeneity, a two-step analysis was performed: a global assessment of all patients, followed by a subgroup analysis restricted to those with systemic sclerosis (SSc) or fulfilling very early SSc (VEDOSS) criteria to explore predictors of response. Efficacy was defined as complete healing, partial response, or a lack of response based on physician assessment. Safety was evaluated through analysis of adverse events. Results: In the global cohort, MACI demonstrated a high rate of complete ulcer healing (82.9%) at the 3-month follow-up, with a significant reduction in median ulcer count (p p = 0.022 and p = 0.028). The drug was well-tolerated; adverse events were infrequent and rarely led to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: In this real-world refractory population, MACI was associated with rapid DU healing and a favorable safety profile. GI and higher ulcer burden predicted diminished treatment response in SSc patients. These results support the use of MACI as a valuable therapeutic option for severe digital vasculopathy in SARDs, although further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 42 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