Efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for pulmonary arterial hypertension: A network meta-analysis

Comparative adherence of macitentan versus ambrisentan and bosentan in Australian patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a retrospective real-world database study

AIM

Bosentan, ambrisentan, and macitentan are endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), currently available in Australia for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This study assessed the comparative adherence of these ERAs for PAH in Australian patients.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study used data for adults with PAH from the Services Australia 10% Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme (PBS) dataset (01/2006-10/2020). The primary outcome was treatment adherence (i.e. receiving ≥80% of ERA doses over 12 months). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment change (add-on or switch) and overall survival.

RESULTS

The study included 436 patients who took bosentan (n = 200), ambrisentan (n = 69), or macitentan (n = 167). Treatment adherence was significantly greater in patients who received macitentan (65.3%) versus ambrisentan (56.5%) and bosentan (58.0%), with odds ratios (ORs; 95% CI) of 0.51 (0.30-0.88; p = 0.016) for bosentan versus macitentan and 0.48 (0.24-0.96; p = 0.037) for ambrisentan versus macitentan. The median time to treatment change was 47.2 and 43.4 months for bosentan and ambrisentan, respectively (not calculated for macitentan because of insufficient duration of data).

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data for Australian patients with PAH showed that treatment adherence for ERAs was suboptimal. Adherence was higher for macitentan compared with ambrisentan and bosentan.

Comparative Treatment Persistence and Adherence to Endothelin Receptor Antagonists Among Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Japan: A Real-World Administrative Claims Database Study

INTRODUCTION

Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs; macitentan, bosentan, ambrisentan) for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), particularly in Asian countries, are scarce. We evaluated the persistence of these ERAs before and after macitentan approval in Japan (2015).

METHODS

We used real-world data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision administrative claims database between April 2008 and November 2020. Patients with PAH were identified from the dataset. Persistence to ERA treatment before and after approval of macitentan in Japan was defined as the time between start of the index ERA and treatment discontinuation or death. Propensity score adjustment was applied to minimize confounding effects among treatment groups.

RESULTS

In the pre-macitentan approval cohort, 153 and 51 patients received bosentan and ambrisentan, respectively. In the post-macitentan approval cohort, 331, 284, and 91 patients received macitentan, bosentan, and ambrisentan, respectively. Unadjusted median persistence for ambrisentan- and bosentan-treated patients was 19 and 10 months, respectively (adjusted HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.61-1.24]; P = 0.434 [bosentan as reference]). In the post-macitentan approval cohort, unadjusted median persistence was 18 months for macitentan-treated patients versus 6 and 8 months for ambrisentan- and bosentan-treated patients, respectively. Adjusted HRs for ambrisentan and bosentan were 1.48 (95% CI 1.12-1.95; P = 0.006) and 1.63 (95% CI 1.30-2.04; P < 0.001 [macitentan as reference]), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data for Japanese patients with PAH showed that persistence was significantly higher for macitentan, versus ambrisentan and bosentan, since its approval.

Adherence and treatment patterns of disease-specific drugs among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: A nationwide, new-user cohort study

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is an incurable pulmonary disease that might result in right heart failure and death. Treatment guidelines recommend upfront or sequential combination therapy for patients with PAH. Recently, several PAH-targeted medications have been approved in Taiwan. This study aimed to investigate treatment patterns and medication adherence in real-world settings. Method: This was a new-user design study on patients treated with PAH-specific medication between 1 January 2014, and 31 December 2019. Data were extracted from the National Health Insurance Research Database. Medication adherence was evaluated by the proportion of days covered (PDC). Adherence was defined as PDC ≥ .8. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the study outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the association between baseline characteristics and adherence. P < .05 indicated statistical significance. Results: A total of 1,900 patients with PAH were identified, and 75.3% of them were females. The mean (standard deviation (SD)) age was 57.2 (17.5) years. Only 23 (1.2%) patients began the initial combination therapy. A total of 148 (7.8%) patients switched their initial treatment to another treatment, and 159 (8.4%) patients had sequential combination therapy. The most common combination therapy was endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) plus phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (PDE5i), mostly macitentan plus sildenafil, for initial or sequential combination. The mean (SD) PDC was .71 (.33), and 1,117 (58.8%) patients were adherent. A significant difference in mean PDC was observed between initial ERA users and PDE5i users (p < .0001). No factor was significantly associated with medication adherence. Conclusion: Patients with PAH mostly initiated sildenafil as monotherapy, and macitentan was added as a sequential combination therapy. The initial ERA and combination groups showed higher medication adherence. Further investigations are needed to identify other factors associated with adherence.

Efficacy and safety of novel-targeted drugs in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a severe and fatal clinical syndrome characterized by high blood pressure and vascular remodeling in the pulmonary arterioles, which is also a rapidly progressing disease of the lung vasculature with a poor prognosis. Although PAH medication made great advances in recent years, the efficacy and safety of the medication are unsatisfactory. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand previous studies to explore the efficacy and safety of PAH-targeted medications. Methods: Relevant articles were searched and selected from published or publicly available data in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, PsycInfo, and MEDLINE (from inception until October 1st, 2020). To assess the efficacy and safety of PAH therapies, five efficacy outcomes [6-minute walking distance (6MWD), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP), WHO functional class (WHO FC) improvement, clinical worsening, death] and two safety outcomes [adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs)] were selected. And 6MWD was regarded as the primary efficacy outcome.Results: 50 trials included with 10 996participants were selected. In terms of efficacy, all targeted drugs were more effective than placebo. For 6MWD, Bosentan + Sildenafil, Sildenafil, Bosentan + Iloprost were better than others. Bosentan + Iloprost and Bosentan + Sildenafil were better for mPAP. Bosentan + Iloprost and Ambrisentan + Tadalafil were more effective in improving WHO FC. Bosentan + Tadalafil and Bosentan + Iloprost had the Ambrisentan probability to reduce the incidence of clinical worsening. It is demonstrated that Ambrisentan had clear benefits in reducing all-cause mortality. In terms of safety, no therapies had been shown to reduce the incidence of SAEs significantly, and Ambrisentan + Tadalafil significantly increased the incidence of AEs.Conclusions: Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) + Endothelin Receptor Antagonists (ERA) seems to be better therapy for PAH. Prostacyclin analogs (ProsA) + ERA appear promising, though additional data is warranted.Registration PROSPERO CRD42020218818.

Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND

The clinical landscape of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has evolved in terms of disease definition and classification, trial designs, available therapies and treatment strategies as well as clinical guidelines. This study critically appraises published evidence synthesis studies, i.e. meta-analyses (MA) and network-meta-analyses (NMA), to better understand their quality, validity and discuss the impact of the findings from these studies on current decision-making in PAH.

METHODS

A systematic literature review to identify MA/NMA studies considering approved and available therapies for treatment of PAH was conducted. Embase, Medline and the Cochrane's Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to April 22, 2020, supplemented by searches in health technology assessment websites. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist covering six domains (relevance, credibility, analysis, reporting quality and transparency, interpretation and conflict of interest) was selected for appraisal of the included MA/NMA studies.

RESULTS

Fifty-two full publications (36 MAs, 15 NMAs, and 1 MA/NMA) in PAH met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were of low quality, with none of the studies being scored as 'strong' across all checklist domains. Key limitations included the lack of a clearly defined, relevant decision problem, shortcomings in assessing and addressing between-study heterogeneity, and an incomplete or misleading interpretation of results.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first critical appraisal of published MA/NMA studies in PAH, suggesting low quality and validity of published evidence synthesis studies in this therapeutic area. Besides the need for direct treatment comparisons assessed in long-term randomized controlled trials, future efforts in evidence synthesis in PAH should improve analysis quality and scrutiny in order to meaningfully address challenges arising from an evolving therapeutic landscape.

Comparative effectiveness of pulmonary arterial hypertension drugs in treatment-naive patients: a network meta-analysis

Aim: No network meta-analysis has been conducted to study efficacy of drug therapies specific for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension in treatment-naive patients only. Methods: Randomized controlled trials on pulmonary arterial hypertension-specific drug therapies were searched and a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. The 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and all-cause mortality were efficacy outcomes, whereas discontinuation due to adverse events was a safety-related outcome. Results: Analysis included 3.713 patients from 21 trials. Combination of ambrisentan and tadalafil showed the greatest impact on 6MWD, followed by epoprostenol and intravenous treprostinil (high dose). The latter two demonstrated marked effect size on mortality, although not statistically significant. Conclusion: According to 6MWD, ambrisentan/tadalafil combination was considered as most effective among all comparisons. Prospero ID: CRD42019110832.

A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Add-on Drug Therapies Specific for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

Background: Recently published meta-analyses did not discriminate between drug agents used for initial and sequential combination therapy. Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of drugs specific for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as add-on therapies based on 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Methods: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until December 9, 2018, for the randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on primarily adult patients diagnosed with PAH. Data extracted from applicable RCTs were as follows: for 6MWD mean change from baseline, the total number of patients, and the number of patients with events, per treatment. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in a Bayesian framework. Results: A total of 16 RCTs were eligible for analysis, with 4112 patients. Add-on therapy with tadalafil or inhaled treprostinil performed better than endothelin receptor antagonists alone [27 m; 95% credible interval (CrI): (11, 43); and 19 m; 95% CrI: (10, 27); respectively]. Add-on therapy with macitentan or bosentan performed better than phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors alone [26 m; 95% CrI: (6.4, 45); and 22 m; 95% CrI: (5.1, 38); respectively]. Differences in all-cause mortality and discontinuation due to AEs were nonsignificant. Conclusion and Relevance: Our NMA evaluated efficacy and safety of add-on therapies in patients with PAH. None of the previous meta-analyses evaluated RCTs focusing solely on patients pretreated with another PAH-specific drug therapy. Our results support guideline recommendations on combination therapy in PAH patients and add the quantitative perspective on which sequential therapy demonstrated the greatest effect size.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of eighteen targeted drugs or drug combinations for pulmonary arterial hypertension

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) can be relieved by pharmacological interventions, especially the targeted drug, which is classified into endothelin receptor antagonist, phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, prostaglandin I₂, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator and selective non-prostanoid prostacyclin receptor agonist. To solve the contradictions existing in reported trials and provide a comprehensive guideline for clinical practice. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched. The basic information about the article, trial, arm, intervention, and the detailed data of outcome, including 6 minutes walking distance (6MWD) change, WHO functional class (FC) improvement, Borg dyspnea score (BDS) change, cardiac index (CI) change, mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) change, mean right arterial pressure (mRAP) change, pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) change, clinical worsening, hospitalization, death, severe adverse events (SAEs), and withdrawal were extracted. The rank of treatments was estimated. 10,230 cases provided the firsthand comparison data about targeted drugs for treating PAH. For 6MWD, ambrisentan + tadalafil, vardenafil, and sildenafil + bosentan were better than others. Epoprostenol, macitentan, and sildenafil represented a greater WHO FC improvement. Vardenafil and treprostinil were better for BDS. So were bosentan + epoprostenol and bosentan alone for CI. Iloprost plus bosentan, bosentan + epoprostenol, and epoprostenol were better for mPAP. Iloprost plus bosentan, bosentan alone, and selexipag could reduce PVR. Sildenafil, epoprostenol, and vardenafil had the highest probability to reduce the incidence of death and withdrawal. To conclude, vardenafil and iloprost + bosentan showed relatively better performance in both efficacy and safety. However, the therapeutic choice should be made according to both the feature of each therapy and the individual condition.