selexipag对无法手术或持续/复发性CTEPH患者的疗效和安全性(SELECT随机试验)。

IF 16.6 1区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Nick H Kim,Richard Channick,Marion Delcroix,Michael Madani,Joanna Pepke-Zaba,Julian I Borissoff,Valerie Easton,Sophie Gesang,Dominik Richard,Hossein-Ardeschir Ghofrani
{"title":"selexipag对无法手术或持续/复发性CTEPH患者的疗效和安全性(SELECT随机试验)。","authors":"Nick H Kim,Richard Channick,Marion Delcroix,Michael Madani,Joanna Pepke-Zaba,Julian I Borissoff,Valerie Easton,Sophie Gesang,Dominik Richard,Hossein-Ardeschir Ghofrani","doi":"10.1183/13993003.00193-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nSELECT was the first global randomised controlled trial of selexipag with standard of care in patients with inoperable or persistent/recurrent chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nSELECT was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, group-sequential, phase 3 study (NCT03689244). Adults aged ≤85 years in WHO functional class I-IV, with a 6-minute walk distance (6 MWD) of 100-450 m, were randomised (1:1) to receive selexipag (200-1600 µg b.i.d. titration until individual maximum tolerated dose)+standard of care or placebo+standard of care. Patients were recruited into the haemodynamic set (first 91 randomised patients to undergo right heart catheterisation [RHC]; Week 20) or non-haemodynamic cohort (remaining patients, no RHC required). Primary endpoint was percent of baseline pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR; Week 20). Safety was also assessed.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOf 321 patients screened, 128 were randomised (haemodynamic set: n=91 [selexipag: n=47; placebo: n=44]). In the haemodynamic set, 29 (31.9%) patients had previous pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), 20 (22.0%) balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA), and 14 (15.4%) both PEA and BPA; 28 (30.8%) were inoperable. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended to stop the study for futility as no statistically significant difference was observed for the primary endpoint (between-treatment geometric least squares mean ratio of PVR: 0.95 [95% CI 0.84, 1.07; p=0.412]). Adverse events were reported in 63 (98.4%) and 53 (82.8%) patients for selexipag and placebo, respectively.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nSELECT was discontinued for futility, as no treatment effect on the primary endpoint (PVR) was observed. Safety data were consistent with the established safety profile of selexipag, with no new safety signals identified.","PeriodicalId":12265,"journal":{"name":"European Respiratory Journal","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of selexipag in patients with inoperable or persistent/recurrent CTEPH (SELECT randomised trial).\",\"authors\":\"Nick H Kim,Richard Channick,Marion Delcroix,Michael Madani,Joanna Pepke-Zaba,Julian I Borissoff,Valerie Easton,Sophie Gesang,Dominik Richard,Hossein-Ardeschir Ghofrani\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/13993003.00193-2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nSELECT was the first global randomised controlled trial of selexipag with standard of care in patients with inoperable or persistent/recurrent chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nSELECT was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, group-sequential, phase 3 study (NCT03689244). Adults aged ≤85 years in WHO functional class I-IV, with a 6-minute walk distance (6 MWD) of 100-450 m, were randomised (1:1) to receive selexipag (200-1600 µg b.i.d. titration until individual maximum tolerated dose)+standard of care or placebo+standard of care. Patients were recruited into the haemodynamic set (first 91 randomised patients to undergo right heart catheterisation [RHC]; Week 20) or non-haemodynamic cohort (remaining patients, no RHC required). Primary endpoint was percent of baseline pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR; Week 20). Safety was also assessed.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nOf 321 patients screened, 128 were randomised (haemodynamic set: n=91 [selexipag: n=47; placebo: n=44]). In the haemodynamic set, 29 (31.9%) patients had previous pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), 20 (22.0%) balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA), and 14 (15.4%) both PEA and BPA; 28 (30.8%) were inoperable. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended to stop the study for futility as no statistically significant difference was observed for the primary endpoint (between-treatment geometric least squares mean ratio of PVR: 0.95 [95% CI 0.84, 1.07; p=0.412]). Adverse events were reported in 63 (98.4%) and 53 (82.8%) patients for selexipag and placebo, respectively.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSION\\r\\nSELECT was discontinued for futility, as no treatment effect on the primary endpoint (PVR) was observed. Safety data were consistent with the established safety profile of selexipag, with no new safety signals identified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00193-2024\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00193-2024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景SELECT是一项多中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照、平行组、分组序列的3期研究(NCT03689244)。年龄≤85岁、WHO功能分级为I-IV级、6分钟步行距离(6 MWD)为100-450米的成人被随机(1:1)分配到接受selexipag(200-1600微克/次,滴定至个人最大耐受剂量)+标准治疗或安慰剂+标准治疗。患者被纳入血流动力学组(首批接受右心导管检查 [RHC] 的 91 名随机患者;第 20 周)或非血流动力学组(其余患者,无需接受右心导管检查)。主要终点是基线肺血管阻力(PVR;第20周)的百分比。结果 在筛选出的 321 名患者中,128 人接受了随机治疗(血流动力学组:91 人[selexipag:47 人;安慰剂:44 人])。在血流动力学组中,29 名患者(31.9%)曾接受过肺动脉内膜切除术(PEA),20 名患者(22.0%)接受过球囊肺血管成形术(BPA),14 名患者(15.4%)同时接受过 PEA 和 BPA;28 名患者(30.8%)无法手术。由于在主要终点(治疗间 PVR 几何最小二乘法均值比:0.95 [95% CI 0.84, 1.07; p=0.412])上未观察到统计学上的显著差异,独立数据监控委员会建议以徒劳为由停止研究。selexipag和安慰剂分别有63例(98.4%)和53例(82.8%)患者出现不良事件。安全性数据与 Selexipag 既定的安全性特征一致,未发现新的安全性信号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and safety of selexipag in patients with inoperable or persistent/recurrent CTEPH (SELECT randomised trial).
BACKGROUND SELECT was the first global randomised controlled trial of selexipag with standard of care in patients with inoperable or persistent/recurrent chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. METHODS SELECT was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, group-sequential, phase 3 study (NCT03689244). Adults aged ≤85 years in WHO functional class I-IV, with a 6-minute walk distance (6 MWD) of 100-450 m, were randomised (1:1) to receive selexipag (200-1600 µg b.i.d. titration until individual maximum tolerated dose)+standard of care or placebo+standard of care. Patients were recruited into the haemodynamic set (first 91 randomised patients to undergo right heart catheterisation [RHC]; Week 20) or non-haemodynamic cohort (remaining patients, no RHC required). Primary endpoint was percent of baseline pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR; Week 20). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS Of 321 patients screened, 128 were randomised (haemodynamic set: n=91 [selexipag: n=47; placebo: n=44]). In the haemodynamic set, 29 (31.9%) patients had previous pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), 20 (22.0%) balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA), and 14 (15.4%) both PEA and BPA; 28 (30.8%) were inoperable. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended to stop the study for futility as no statistically significant difference was observed for the primary endpoint (between-treatment geometric least squares mean ratio of PVR: 0.95 [95% CI 0.84, 1.07; p=0.412]). Adverse events were reported in 63 (98.4%) and 53 (82.8%) patients for selexipag and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSION SELECT was discontinued for futility, as no treatment effect on the primary endpoint (PVR) was observed. Safety data were consistent with the established safety profile of selexipag, with no new safety signals identified.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Respiratory Journal
European Respiratory Journal 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
27.50
自引率
3.30%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Respiratory Journal (ERJ) is the flagship journal of the European Respiratory Society. It has a current impact factor of 24.9. The journal covers various aspects of adult and paediatric respiratory medicine, including cell biology, epidemiology, immunology, oncology, pathophysiology, imaging, occupational medicine, intensive care, sleep medicine, and thoracic surgery. In addition to original research material, the ERJ publishes editorial commentaries, reviews, short research letters, and correspondence to the editor. The articles are published continuously and collected into 12 monthly issues in two volumes per year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信