Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of bosentan for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension

17Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background/Aims: We assessed the efficacy and safety of bosentan in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Methods: We surveyed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy and safety of bosentan in patients with PAH using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and manual searches. Meta-analysis of RCTs was performed to determine treatment efficacy and safety outcomes. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs). Results: Meta-analysis of seven RCTs including a total of 410 patients and 296 controls revealed that the 6-minute work distance was significantly higher in the bosentan group than in the placebo group (WMD, 46.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21.20 to 71.19; p = 2.9 × 10-5). Compared with the placebo, bosentan significantly reduced the mean pulmonary arterial pressure in patients with PAH (WMD, -6.026; 95% CI, -8.785 to -3.268, p = 1.8 × 10-6). The bosentan therapy group worsened less clinically than the placebo group (OR, 0.252; 95% CI, 0.140 to 0.454; p = 4.6 × 10-7). The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ between the bosentan and placebo groups (OR, 0.948; 95% CI, 0.556 to 1.614; p = 0.843). However, the results of the abnormal liver function test (LFT) were significantly higher in the bosentan group than in the placebo group (OR, 2.312; 95% CI, 1.020 to 5.241; p = 0.045). Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that bosentan can treat PAH effectively. However, bosentan increased the incidence of abnormal LFT results compared with the placebo. © 2013 The Korean Association of Internal Medicine.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, Y. H., & Song, G. G. (2013). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of bosentan for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, 28(6), 701–707. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2013.28.6.701

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free