Yuji Oba, Tinashe Maduke, Eddie W Fakhouri, Yohannes Goite
{"title":"磷酸二酯酶5型抑制剂联合内皮素受体拮抗剂治疗1组肺动脉高压的疗效比较。","authors":"Yuji Oba, Tinashe Maduke, Eddie W Fakhouri, Yohannes Goite","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015824.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a rare disorder, causes elevated pressure in the pulmonary arteries, leading to heart failure. Untreated PAH has a poor prognosis, emphasising the need for effective intervention. Pharmacological treatment includes pulmonary vasodilators such as endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i), and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, often used together to improve symptoms and quality of life while reducing mortality and risk of hospitalisation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of combination therapy involving a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) and an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) in adults and adolescents with group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) compared to either agent alone.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The most recent searches were conducted on 13 March 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included published and unpublished RCTs comparing combinations of ERAs and PDE5is versus either agent alone lasting at least 12 weeks. Participants were aged 12 years or older with WHO group 1 PAH meeting specific haemodynamic criteria. We excluded cluster-, cross-over, and quasi-RCTs, and other PAH-specific medications.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Critical outcomes were clinical worsening, mortality, and hospitalisation. Important outcomes were changes in six-minute walk distance (6MWD), WHO functional class, Borg Dyspnea Scale, serious adverse events, and withdrawal from the trial.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation. This informed GRADE ratings and summary of findings tables.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We used a random-effects model to address study differences, switching to a fixed-effect model if there was variation primarily due to random error. We conducted meta-analyses if deemed meaningful, with data pooled if treatments, participants, and clinical questions were sufficiently similar.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included nine studies with 1807 participants. The median duration of the studies was 16 weeks, ranging from 12 to 129 weeks. Treatment regimens included combinations of medications such as ambrisentan, bosentan, macitentan, tadalafil, and sildenafil.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Combination therapy versus endothelin receptor antagonist Combination therapy reduces clinical worsening compared to ERA alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.68; 113 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 141 fewer to 77 fewer; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) 9, 95% CI 7 to 13; 5 trials, 1139 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation is likely reduced (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.55; 70 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 83 fewer to 46 fewer; NNTB 14, 95% CI 12 to 22; moderate-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in little to no difference in mortality (low-certainty evidence), and a clinically negligible improvement in 6MWD (mean difference (MD) 19.4 m, 95% CI 10.5 to 28.3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no change in Borg Dyspnea Scale (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for WHO functional class was very uncertain. There may be little to no difference in serious adverse events and trial withdrawals between the groups (low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy versus phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination treatment on clinical worsening compared to PDE5i alone (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.39; 142 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 298 fewer to 173 more; 4 trials, 1372 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although exclusion of high-bias studies suggested a potential benefit (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.73). The evidence on hospitalisations was very uncertainty, while there was little to no difference in mortality (low-certainty evidence). There was a clinically negligible improvement in 6MWD (MD 20.4 m, 95% CI 10.7 to 30.2; moderate-certainty evidence) and little to no change in Borg Dyspnea Scale (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for WHO functional class was very uncertain. Serious adverse events may be comparable (low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy reduces withdrawal from the trial compared to PDE5i alone (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; 64 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 117 fewer to 4 fewer; NNTB 16, 95% CI 9 to 250; low-certainty evidence). Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor versus endothelin receptor antagonist PDE5i likely results in little to no difference in clinical worsening compared to ERA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; 3 trials, 644 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for mortality and hospitalisation. PDE5i results in little to no difference in 6MWD compared to ERA (MD 18.4 m, 95% CI -50.2 to 86.9; low-certainty evidence). The impact on WHO functional class worsening, serious adverse events, and trial withdrawal was also uncertain, with all outcomes supported by very low- or low-certainty evidence. Overall, current data do not provide reliable conclusions on the relative efficacy or safety of PDE5i versus ERA.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Combination therapy for PAH offers benefits over monotherapies, reducing clinical worsening compared to ERA alone (high certainty). Their benefits over PDE5i are less certain, although potentially favourable when studies at high risk of bias are excluded. Hospitalisation rates are likely reduced with combination therapy compared to ERA, but the effect is very uncertain when combination therapy is compared to PDE5i. Uncertainty also persists regarding its impact on mortality and functional outcomes, such as 6MWD and WHO functional class. Serious adverse events and withdrawal rates are similar between combination therapy and monotherapies, with varying levels of certainty, although withdrawals may favour combination therapy over PDE5i. Comparative analyses of PDE5i and ERA provided mixed results with varying levels of certainty. These findings could inform whether initial combination therapy should become the standard of care in people with group 1 PAH with WHO functional class levels of II or III. However, the review's limited representation of Black people raises concerns about generalisability, given the observed differences in response to ERAs between Black and White people with PAH in the literature.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol available via DOI10.1002/14651858.CD015824.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"8 ","pages":"CD015824"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12320213/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor plus endothelin receptor antagonist compared to either alone for group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension.\",\"authors\":\"Yuji Oba, Tinashe Maduke, Eddie W Fakhouri, Yohannes Goite\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD015824.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a rare disorder, causes elevated pressure in the pulmonary arteries, leading to heart failure. Untreated PAH has a poor prognosis, emphasising the need for effective intervention. Pharmacological treatment includes pulmonary vasodilators such as endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i), and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, often used together to improve symptoms and quality of life while reducing mortality and risk of hospitalisation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of combination therapy involving a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) and an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) in adults and adolescents with group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) compared to either agent alone.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The most recent searches were conducted on 13 March 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included published and unpublished RCTs comparing combinations of ERAs and PDE5is versus either agent alone lasting at least 12 weeks. Participants were aged 12 years or older with WHO group 1 PAH meeting specific haemodynamic criteria. We excluded cluster-, cross-over, and quasi-RCTs, and other PAH-specific medications.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Critical outcomes were clinical worsening, mortality, and hospitalisation. Important outcomes were changes in six-minute walk distance (6MWD), WHO functional class, Borg Dyspnea Scale, serious adverse events, and withdrawal from the trial.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation. This informed GRADE ratings and summary of findings tables.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We used a random-effects model to address study differences, switching to a fixed-effect model if there was variation primarily due to random error. We conducted meta-analyses if deemed meaningful, with data pooled if treatments, participants, and clinical questions were sufficiently similar.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included nine studies with 1807 participants. The median duration of the studies was 16 weeks, ranging from 12 to 129 weeks. Treatment regimens included combinations of medications such as ambrisentan, bosentan, macitentan, tadalafil, and sildenafil.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Combination therapy versus endothelin receptor antagonist Combination therapy reduces clinical worsening compared to ERA alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.68; 113 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 141 fewer to 77 fewer; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) 9, 95% CI 7 to 13; 5 trials, 1139 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation is likely reduced (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.55; 70 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 83 fewer to 46 fewer; NNTB 14, 95% CI 12 to 22; moderate-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in little to no difference in mortality (low-certainty evidence), and a clinically negligible improvement in 6MWD (mean difference (MD) 19.4 m, 95% CI 10.5 to 28.3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no change in Borg Dyspnea Scale (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for WHO functional class was very uncertain. There may be little to no difference in serious adverse events and trial withdrawals between the groups (low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy versus phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination treatment on clinical worsening compared to PDE5i alone (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.39; 142 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 298 fewer to 173 more; 4 trials, 1372 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although exclusion of high-bias studies suggested a potential benefit (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.73). The evidence on hospitalisations was very uncertainty, while there was little to no difference in mortality (low-certainty evidence). There was a clinically negligible improvement in 6MWD (MD 20.4 m, 95% CI 10.7 to 30.2; moderate-certainty evidence) and little to no change in Borg Dyspnea Scale (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for WHO functional class was very uncertain. Serious adverse events may be comparable (low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy reduces withdrawal from the trial compared to PDE5i alone (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; 64 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 117 fewer to 4 fewer; NNTB 16, 95% CI 9 to 250; low-certainty evidence). Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor versus endothelin receptor antagonist PDE5i likely results in little to no difference in clinical worsening compared to ERA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; 3 trials, 644 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for mortality and hospitalisation. PDE5i results in little to no difference in 6MWD compared to ERA (MD 18.4 m, 95% CI -50.2 to 86.9; low-certainty evidence). The impact on WHO functional class worsening, serious adverse events, and trial withdrawal was also uncertain, with all outcomes supported by very low- or low-certainty evidence. Overall, current data do not provide reliable conclusions on the relative efficacy or safety of PDE5i versus ERA.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Combination therapy for PAH offers benefits over monotherapies, reducing clinical worsening compared to ERA alone (high certainty). Their benefits over PDE5i are less certain, although potentially favourable when studies at high risk of bias are excluded. Hospitalisation rates are likely reduced with combination therapy compared to ERA, but the effect is very uncertain when combination therapy is compared to PDE5i. Uncertainty also persists regarding its impact on mortality and functional outcomes, such as 6MWD and WHO functional class. Serious adverse events and withdrawal rates are similar between combination therapy and monotherapies, with varying levels of certainty, although withdrawals may favour combination therapy over PDE5i. Comparative analyses of PDE5i and ERA provided mixed results with varying levels of certainty. These findings could inform whether initial combination therapy should become the standard of care in people with group 1 PAH with WHO functional class levels of II or III. However, the review's limited representation of Black people raises concerns about generalisability, given the observed differences in response to ERAs between Black and White people with PAH in the literature.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol available via DOI10.1002/14651858.CD015824.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"CD015824\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12320213/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015824.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015824.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理由:肺动脉高压(PAH)是一种罕见的疾病,它会引起肺动脉压力升高,导致心力衰竭。未经治疗的多环芳烃预后差,强调需要有效的干预。药物治疗包括肺血管扩张剂,如内皮素受体拮抗剂(ERA)、前列腺环素类似物、磷酸二酯酶5型抑制剂(PDE5i)和可溶性鸟苷酸环化酶刺激剂,通常一起使用以改善症状和生活质量,同时降低死亡率和住院风险。目的:评估磷酸二酯酶5型抑制剂(PDE5i)和内皮素受体拮抗剂(ERA)联合治疗成人和青少年1组肺动脉高压(PAH)的利与弊,与单独使用任何一种药物相比。检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane中央对照试验注册库、MEDLINE、Scopus、ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台的随机对照试验(rct)。最近一次搜索是在2024年3月13日进行的。入选标准:我们纳入了已发表和未发表的rct,比较ERAs和PDE5is联合用药与单独用药至少持续12周。参与者年龄在12岁或以上,患有符合特定血流动力学标准的WHO 1组PAH。我们排除了聚类、交叉、准随机对照试验和其他pah特异性药物。结局:关键结局为临床恶化、死亡率和住院。重要的结果是6分钟步行距离(6MWD)、WHO功能分级、Borg呼吸困难量表、严重不良事件和退出试验的变化。偏倚风险:两位综述作者使用Cochrane RoB 2工具独立评估偏倚风险。我们通过讨论或协商解决分歧。这为GRADE评分和结果表总结提供了信息。综合方法:我们使用随机效应模型来解决研究差异,如果存在主要由随机误差引起的差异,则切换到固定效应模型。如果认为有意义,我们进行了荟萃分析,如果治疗、参与者和临床问题足够相似,我们将数据汇总。纳入的研究:我们纳入了9项研究,共1807名受试者。研究的中位持续时间为16周,从12周到129周不等。治疗方案包括联合用药,如安布里森坦、波生坦、马西坦、他达拉非和西地那非。综合结果:联合治疗与内皮素受体拮抗剂相比,联合治疗可减少ERA的临床恶化(风险比(RR) 0.53, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.41 ~ 0.68;每1000名受试者减少113人,95%可信区间减少141至77人;额外有益效果需要治疗的人数(NNTB) 9, 95% CI 7 ~ 13;5项试验,1139名受试者;高确定性的证据)。住院率可能降低(RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 - 0.55;每1000名受试者减少70人,95% CI减少83至46人;NNTB 14, 95% CI 12 ~ 22;moderate-certainty证据)。联合治疗可能导致死亡率几乎没有差异(低确定性证据),临床上可忽略的6MWD改善(平均差(MD) 19.4 m, 95% CI 10.5至28.3;moderate-certainty证据)。Borg呼吸困难量表几乎没有变化(低确定性证据)。WHO功能等级的证据非常不确定。两组之间在严重不良事件和试验退出方面可能几乎没有差异(低确定性证据)。联合治疗与磷酸二酯酶5型抑制剂相比,联合治疗对临床恶化的影响证据非常不确定(RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33至1.39;每1000名受试者减少142人,95% CI减少298人至增加173人;4项试验,1372名受试者;非常低确定性的证据),尽管排除高偏倚研究表明潜在的益处(RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44至0.73)。住院治疗的证据非常不确定,而死亡率几乎没有差异(低确定性证据)。6MWD的临床改善可以忽略不计(MD为20.4 m, 95% CI为10.7 ~ 30.2;中度确定性证据),博格呼吸困难量表几乎没有变化(低确定性证据)。WHO功能等级的证据非常不确定。严重的不良事件可能具有可比性(低确定性证据)。与单独使用PDE5i相比,联合治疗减少了退出试验(RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 - 0.99;每1000名受试者减少64人,95% CI减少117至4人;NNTB 16, 95% CI 9 ~ 250;确定性的证据)。与ERA相比,磷酸二酯酶5型抑制剂与内皮素受体拮抗剂PDE5i在临床恶化方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71至1.20;3项试验,644名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。 死亡率和住院率方面的证据非常不确定。与ERA相比,PDE5i对6MWD几乎没有影响(MD 18.4 m, 95% CI -50.2 ~ 86.9;确定性的证据)。对WHO功能等级恶化、严重不良事件和试验退出的影响也不确定,所有结果都有非常低或低确定性的证据支持。总的来说,目前的数据并没有提供PDE5i相对于ERA的相对疗效或安全性的可靠结论。作者的结论:与单一治疗相比,PAH的联合治疗更有益处,与ERA单独治疗相比,可以减少临床恶化(高确定性)。它们相对于PDE5i的益处不太确定,尽管在排除高偏倚风险的研究时可能是有利的。与ERA相比,联合治疗可能会降低住院率,但与PDE5i相比,联合治疗的效果非常不确定。其对死亡率和功能结果(如6MWD和WHO功能等级)的影响也存在不确定性。严重不良事件和停药率在联合治疗和单一治疗之间相似,具有不同程度的确定性,尽管停药可能倾向于联合治疗而不是PDE5i。PDE5i和ERA的对比分析提供了不同程度确定性的混合结果。这些发现可以告知初始联合治疗是否应该成为WHO功能分级水平为II或III的1组PAH患者的标准治疗。然而,鉴于文献中观察到的黑人和白人多环芳烃患者对ERAs的反应差异,该综述对黑人的有限代表性引起了对通用性的担忧。经费:本综述没有专门的经费。注册:协议可通过DOI10.1002/14651858.CD015824获得。
Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor plus endothelin receptor antagonist compared to either alone for group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Rationale: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a rare disorder, causes elevated pressure in the pulmonary arteries, leading to heart failure. Untreated PAH has a poor prognosis, emphasising the need for effective intervention. Pharmacological treatment includes pulmonary vasodilators such as endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i), and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, often used together to improve symptoms and quality of life while reducing mortality and risk of hospitalisation.
Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of combination therapy involving a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) and an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) in adults and adolescents with group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) compared to either agent alone.
Search methods: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The most recent searches were conducted on 13 March 2024.
Eligibility criteria: We included published and unpublished RCTs comparing combinations of ERAs and PDE5is versus either agent alone lasting at least 12 weeks. Participants were aged 12 years or older with WHO group 1 PAH meeting specific haemodynamic criteria. We excluded cluster-, cross-over, and quasi-RCTs, and other PAH-specific medications.
Outcomes: Critical outcomes were clinical worsening, mortality, and hospitalisation. Important outcomes were changes in six-minute walk distance (6MWD), WHO functional class, Borg Dyspnea Scale, serious adverse events, and withdrawal from the trial.
Risk of bias: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation. This informed GRADE ratings and summary of findings tables.
Synthesis methods: We used a random-effects model to address study differences, switching to a fixed-effect model if there was variation primarily due to random error. We conducted meta-analyses if deemed meaningful, with data pooled if treatments, participants, and clinical questions were sufficiently similar.
Included studies: We included nine studies with 1807 participants. The median duration of the studies was 16 weeks, ranging from 12 to 129 weeks. Treatment regimens included combinations of medications such as ambrisentan, bosentan, macitentan, tadalafil, and sildenafil.
Synthesis of results: Combination therapy versus endothelin receptor antagonist Combination therapy reduces clinical worsening compared to ERA alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.68; 113 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 141 fewer to 77 fewer; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) 9, 95% CI 7 to 13; 5 trials, 1139 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation is likely reduced (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.55; 70 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 83 fewer to 46 fewer; NNTB 14, 95% CI 12 to 22; moderate-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in little to no difference in mortality (low-certainty evidence), and a clinically negligible improvement in 6MWD (mean difference (MD) 19.4 m, 95% CI 10.5 to 28.3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no change in Borg Dyspnea Scale (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for WHO functional class was very uncertain. There may be little to no difference in serious adverse events and trial withdrawals between the groups (low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy versus phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination treatment on clinical worsening compared to PDE5i alone (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.39; 142 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 298 fewer to 173 more; 4 trials, 1372 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although exclusion of high-bias studies suggested a potential benefit (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.73). The evidence on hospitalisations was very uncertainty, while there was little to no difference in mortality (low-certainty evidence). There was a clinically negligible improvement in 6MWD (MD 20.4 m, 95% CI 10.7 to 30.2; moderate-certainty evidence) and little to no change in Borg Dyspnea Scale (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for WHO functional class was very uncertain. Serious adverse events may be comparable (low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy reduces withdrawal from the trial compared to PDE5i alone (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; 64 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 117 fewer to 4 fewer; NNTB 16, 95% CI 9 to 250; low-certainty evidence). Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor versus endothelin receptor antagonist PDE5i likely results in little to no difference in clinical worsening compared to ERA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; 3 trials, 644 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for mortality and hospitalisation. PDE5i results in little to no difference in 6MWD compared to ERA (MD 18.4 m, 95% CI -50.2 to 86.9; low-certainty evidence). The impact on WHO functional class worsening, serious adverse events, and trial withdrawal was also uncertain, with all outcomes supported by very low- or low-certainty evidence. Overall, current data do not provide reliable conclusions on the relative efficacy or safety of PDE5i versus ERA.
Authors' conclusions: Combination therapy for PAH offers benefits over monotherapies, reducing clinical worsening compared to ERA alone (high certainty). Their benefits over PDE5i are less certain, although potentially favourable when studies at high risk of bias are excluded. Hospitalisation rates are likely reduced with combination therapy compared to ERA, but the effect is very uncertain when combination therapy is compared to PDE5i. Uncertainty also persists regarding its impact on mortality and functional outcomes, such as 6MWD and WHO functional class. Serious adverse events and withdrawal rates are similar between combination therapy and monotherapies, with varying levels of certainty, although withdrawals may favour combination therapy over PDE5i. Comparative analyses of PDE5i and ERA provided mixed results with varying levels of certainty. These findings could inform whether initial combination therapy should become the standard of care in people with group 1 PAH with WHO functional class levels of II or III. However, the review's limited representation of Black people raises concerns about generalisability, given the observed differences in response to ERAs between Black and White people with PAH in the literature.
Funding: This review had no dedicated funding.
Registration: Protocol available via DOI10.1002/14651858.CD015824.
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.