Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Nov;17(11):1117-1129.
doi: 10.1111/crj.13621. Epub 2023 Jul 10.

Efficacy and safety of macitentan for pulmonary hypertension: A meta-analysis

Dan Du  1 , Ya-Dong Yuan  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of macitentan for pulmonary hypertension: A meta-analysis

Dan Du et al. Clin Respir J. 2023 Nov.

Abstract

Introduction: Our purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect and safety of macitentan in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension (PH).

Methods: We retrieved the safety and efficacy of macitentan treatment for PH using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE databases and clinicaltrials.gov. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used for literature screening and quality assessment. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.1 and Stata/SE 15.1 software. Results are presented as standardization mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratio (OR).

Results: Meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies and four non-RCT studies with 2769 patients was included, involving 723 in the macitentan group and 599 in the placebo group. The results of the study showed that macitentan had effectively decreased pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI: -0.77--0.29, p < 0.05), cardiac index (CI) (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-0.83, p < 0.05) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.40--0.03, p < 0.05). Furthermore, macitentan also significantly reduced PVR (SMD = -0.58, 95% CI: -0.80--0.35, p < 0.05), 6-min walk distance (6WMD) (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.15-0.50, p < 0.05), CI (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28-0.69, p < 0.05), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) (SMD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.64--0.23, p < 0.05) and NT-proBNP (SMD = -0.55, 95% CI: -1.07--0.03, p < 0.05) between baseline and follow-up. The adverse reactions to macitentan were mild, with headache, anaemia and bronchitis. Other efficacy and safety outcomes did not reach statistical differences.

Conclusion: Macitentan therapy for PH is effective and safe. The effectiveness on PVR, mPAP, mean right atrial pressure (mRAP), mortality and other indicators still needs to be further confirmed.

Keywords: efficacy; macitentan; meta-analysis; pulmonary hypertension; safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All content on this website, including text, pictures, audio, software, programmes and layout design, has been collected from the Internet. Visitors may use the content or services of this site for personal study, research or enjoyment, and for other non‐commercial or non‐profit purposes.

However, it shall comply with the provisions of copyright law and other relevant laws and shall not infringe upon the legitimate rights of the website and relevant right holders. In addition, any use of any content or service of the website for other purposes shall be subject to the written permission of the website and relevant right holders and payment of remuneration. If the original author of the content of this website is not willing to publish the content on this website, please inform the website in time to delete it.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Literature retrieve flow diagram.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Literature quality assessment.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Meta‐analysis of the effects of macitentan versus placebo on pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR).
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Meta‐analysis of the effects of follow‐up versus baseline on pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR).
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Meta‐analysis of the effects of macitentan versus placebo on 6‐min walk distance (6WMD).
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Meta‐analysis of the effects of follow‐up versus baseline on 6‐min walk distance (6WMD).
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Meta‐analysis of the effects of macitentan versus placebo on mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP).
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Meta‐analysis of the effects of follow‐up versus baseline on mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, et al. ESC/ERS guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J. 2022;61(1):3618‐3731. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00879-2022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chao L, Junmin C, Yanqiu G, Bao D, Kunshen L. Endothelin receptor antagonists for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;3(3):CD004434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004434.pub6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Haryono A, Ramadhiani R, Ryanto GRT, Emoto N. Endothelin and the cardiovascular system: the long journey and where we are going. Biology (Basel). 2022;11(5):759. doi: 10.3390/biology11050759 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Channick R, Badesch DB, Tapson VF, et al. Effects of the dual endothelin receptor antagonist bosentan in patients with pulmonary hypertension: a placebo‐controlled study. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2001;20(2):262‐263. doi: 10.1016/s1053-2498(00)00606-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cohen H, Chahine C, Hui A, Mukherji R. Bosentan therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004;61(11):1107‐1119. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/61.11.1107 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types