Division of Cardiology, The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Department of Haematology and Rheumatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 26;3(3):CD004434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004434.pub6.
Pulmonary arterial hypertension is a devastating disease that leads to right heart failure and premature death. Endothelin receptor antagonists have shown efficacy in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension.
To evaluate the efficacy of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) in pulmonary arterial hypertension.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the reference sections of retrieved articles. The searches are current as of 4 November 2020.
We included randomised trials and quasi-randomised trials involving participants with pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Two of five review authors selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality according to established criteria. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were exercise capacity (six-minute walk distance, 6MWD), World Health Organization (WHO) or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, Borg dyspnoea scores and dyspnoea-fatigue ratings, and mortality.
We included 17 randomised controlled trials involving a total of 3322 participants. Most trials were of relatively short duration (12 weeks to six months). Sixteen trials were placebo-controlled, and of these nine investigated a non-selective ERA and seven a selective ERA. We evaluated two comparisons in the review: ERA versus placebo and ERA versus phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor. The abstract focuses on the placebo-controlled trials only and presents the pooled results of selective and non-selective ERAs. After treatment, participants receiving ERAs could probably walk on average 25.06 m (95% confidence interval (CI) 17.13 to 32.99 m; 2739 participants; 14 studies; I = 34%, moderate-certainty evidence) further than those receiving placebo in a 6MWD. Endothelin receptor antagonists probably improved more participants' WHO functional class (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70; participants = 3060; studies = 15; I = 5%, moderate-certainty evidence) and probably lowered the odds of functional class deterioration (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.72; participants = 2347; studies = 13; I = 40%, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There may be a reduction in mortality with ERAs (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.58, 1.07; 2889 participants; 12 studies; I = 0%, low-certainty evidence), and pooled data suggest that ERAs probably improve cardiopulmonary haemodynamics and may reduce Borg dyspnoea score in symptomatic patients. Hepatic toxicity was not common, but may be increased by ERA treatment from 37 to 67 (95% CI 34 to 130) per 1000 over 25 weeks of treatment (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.90; moderate-certainty evidence). Although ERAs were well tolerated in this population, several cases of irreversible liver failure caused by sitaxsentan have been reported, which led the licence holder for sitaxsentan to withdraw the product from all markets worldwide. As planned, we performed subgroup analyses comparing selective and non-selective ERAs, and with the exception of mean pulmonary artery pressure, did not detect any clear subgroup differences for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with pulmonary arterial hypertension with WHO functional class II and III, endothelin receptor antagonists probably increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, prevent WHO functional class deterioration, result in favourable changes in cardiopulmonary haemodynamic variables compared with placebo. However, they are less effective in reducing dyspnoea and mortality. The efficacy data were strongest in those with idiopathic pulmonary hypertension. The irreversible liver failure caused by sitaxsentan and its withdrawal from global markets emphasise the importance of hepatic monitoring in people treated with ERAs. The question of the effects of ERAs on pulmonary arterial hypertension has now likely been answered.. The combined use of ERAs and phosphodiesterase inhibitors may provide more benefit in pulmonary arterial hypertension; however, this needs to be confirmed in future studies.
肺动脉高压是一种破坏性疾病,可导致右心衰竭和过早死亡。内皮素受体拮抗剂已被证明在肺动脉高压的治疗中有效。
评估内皮素受体拮抗剂(ERAs)在肺动脉高压中的疗效。
我们检索了 Cochrane 中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase 和检索到的文章的参考文献部分。检索截至 2020 年 11 月 4 日。
我们纳入了涉及肺动脉高压患者的随机试验和准随机试验。
五名综述作者中的两名选择了研究、提取数据,并根据既定标准评估了研究质量。我们使用了 Cochrane 预期的标准方法。主要结局指标是运动能力(6 分钟步行距离,6MWD)、世界卫生组织(WHO)或纽约心脏协会(NYHA)功能分级、Borg 呼吸困难评分和呼吸困难疲劳评分以及死亡率。
我们纳入了 17 项随机对照试验,共涉及 3322 名参与者。大多数试验的持续时间相对较短(12 周至 6 个月)。16 项试验为安慰剂对照,其中 9 项研究了非选择性 ERA,7 项研究了选择性 ERA。我们在综述中评估了两种比较:ERA 与安慰剂和 ERA 与磷酸二酯酶 5(PDE5)抑制剂。摘要仅关注安慰剂对照试验,并呈现了选择性和非选择性 ERAs 的汇总结果。治疗后,接受 ERAs 治疗的患者在 6MWD 中可能比接受安慰剂治疗的患者平均多走 25.06 米(95%置信区间(CI)17.13 至 32.99 米;2739 名参与者;14 项研究;I = 34%,中等确定性证据)。内皮素受体拮抗剂可能使更多的患者的 WHO 功能分级改善(优势比(OR)1.41,95%CI 1.16 至 1.70;参与者=3060;研究=15;I=5%,中等确定性证据),并可能降低功能分级恶化的几率(OR 0.43,95%CI 0.26 至 0.72;参与者=2347;研究=13;I=40%,中等确定性证据)与安慰剂相比。与安慰剂相比,内皮素受体拮抗剂可能降低死亡率(OR 0.78,95%CI 0.58,1.07;2889 名参与者;12 项研究;I=0%,低确定性证据),并且汇总数据表明,内皮素受体拮抗剂可能改善心肺血液动力学,并可能降低有症状患者的 Borg 呼吸困难评分。肝毒性并不常见,但可能会因 ERA 治疗而增加,从 25 周治疗的 37 至 67(95%CI 34 至 130)/1000(OR 1.88,95%CI 0.91 至 3.90;中等确定性证据)。尽管内皮素受体拮抗剂在这一人群中耐受良好,但已有几例因西他生坦引起的不可逆转的肝衰竭报告,导致西他生坦的许可持有者将该产品从所有市场撤出。按计划,我们进行了比较选择性和非选择性 ERAs 的亚组分析,除了平均肺动脉压外,我们没有发现任何结局的亚组差异。
对于 WHO 功能分级 II 和 III 的肺动脉高压患者,内皮素受体拮抗剂可能会增加运动能力,改善 WHO 功能分级,预防 WHO 功能分级恶化,与安慰剂相比,对心肺血液动力学变量产生有利的变化。然而,它们在减轻呼吸困难和死亡率方面效果较差。在特发性肺动脉高压患者中,疗效数据最强。西他生坦引起的不可逆转的肝衰竭及其从全球市场撤出强调了在接受内皮素受体拮抗剂治疗的人群中监测肝脏的重要性。内皮素受体拮抗剂对肺动脉高压的影响问题现在可能已经得到解答。内皮素受体拮抗剂和磷酸二酯酶抑制剂的联合使用可能会在肺动脉高压中提供更多的益处;然而,这需要在未来的研究中得到证实。