Dataset Information

Benefits of Macitentan in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of macitentan in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH).

Methods

A systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment of PH with macitentan, compared with placebo or blank, were reviewed. Studies were pooled to weighted mean differences (WMDs) and risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Six RCTs (enrolling 1,003 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Macitentan showed significant effects on 6-min walk distance (6MWD) (WMD 12.06 m, 95% CI 2.12 to 21.99 m), pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) (WMD -186.51 dyn·s/cm^-5, 95% CI -232.72 to -140.29 dyn·s/cm^-5), mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) (WMD -3.20 mmHg, 95% CI -5.93 to -0.47 mmHg), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (WMD -232.47 ng/L, 95% wCI -318.22 to -146.72 ng/L), and cardiac index (WMD 0.39 L/min/m², 95% CI 0.20 to 0.58 L/min/m²).

Conclusion

Macitentan significantly improved 6MWD, PVR, mPAP, NT-proBNP, and cardiac index in patients with PH. Macitentan should be further validated in patients with PH.

SUBMITTER: Qin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10607635 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Benefits of Macitentan in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Qin Jinlv J Wang Guizuo G Han Dong D

Global heart 20231026 1

<h4>Background</h4>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of macitentan in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH).<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment of PH with macitentan, compared with placebo or blank, were reviewed. Studies were pooled to weighted mean differences (WMDs) and risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confi ...[more]

PMID: 37901601

Similar Datasets

Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension, a major risk factor of cardiovascular mortality, is a critical issue for public health. Although Baduanjin (Eight Brocades, EB), a traditional Chinese exercise, might influence blood pressure, glucose, and lipid status, the magnitude of true effects and subgroup differences remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of EB on patient-important outcomes.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Chinese databases since inception until March 30, 2020. Meta-analysis was carried out using "meta" package in R 3.4.3 software. A prespecified subgroup analysis was done according to the type of comparisons between groups, and the credibility of significant subgroup effects (P < 0.05) were accessed using a five-criteria list. A GRADE evidence profile was constructed to illustrate the certainty of evidence.ResultsOur meta-analysis, including 14 eligible trials with 1058 patients, showed that compared with routine treatment or health education as control groups, the mean difference (MD) in systolic blood pressure (SBP) of the EB groups was - 8.52 mmHg (95%CI:[- 10.65, - 6.40], P < 0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was - 4.65 mmHg (95%CI: [- 6.55, - 2.74], P < 0.01). For blood pressure, the evidence was, however, of low certainty because of risk of bias and inconsistency, and for the outcomes of most interest to patients (cardiovascular morbidity and mortality directly), of very low certainty (measurement of surrogate only). Subgroup analysis showed there was no significant interaction effect between different type of comparisons (SBP P = 0.15; DBP P = 0.37), so it could be easily attributed to chance.ConclusionRegularly EB exercising may be helpful to control blood pressure, but the evidence is only low certainty for blood pressure and very low certainty for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Rigorously designed RCTs that carry out longer follow-up and address patient-important outcomes remain warranted.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration number: CRD42018095854 .

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Dataset Information

Benefits of Macitentan in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Benefits of Macitentan in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets