Search

Background: Access to inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is limited in low resource settings due to non-availability and high cost. There is a need for research on low-cost alternative therapies for management of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN). We aimed to compare oral sildenafil and bosentan as monotherapy in the treatment of neonates with PPHN., Study Design: In this single-centre open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT), term and late preterm neonates with PPHN, defined as pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (PASP) > 35 mmHg and requiring fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) > 0.21, were randomized to receive oral sildenafil and bosentan. The primary outcome was reduction of PASP by 25% within 48 h after start of drug., Results: Thirty-six neonates were analyzed (18 in each group). Initial PASPs were similar in both groups. The median (IQR) time for the primary outcome (PASP to reduce by 25% within 48 h) was 36 (24-48) h and 96 (48-120) h in sildenafil and bosentan groups respectively (p = 0.008). There was also a higher need to add other pulmonary vasodilators in bosentan group as compared to sildenafil group (p = 0.006)., Conclusion: Sildenafil was associated with quicker reduction of PASP and FiO 2 in neonates with PPHN, as compared to bosentan. Large multicentre blinded trials to assess efficacy and safety of bosentan in comparison with other pulmonary vasodilators would help to get a clearer understanding of its role in the management of PPHN, particularly for use in resource-limited settings that lack iNO., Clinical Trial Registration: https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/rmaindet.php? trialid=63997&EncHid=39716.16132&modid=1&compid=19[CTRI/2022/06/043328]., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

What Is Known and Objective: Two endothelin receptor antagonists, ambrisentan and bosentan, have been demonstrated to be effective individually compared with placebo in the treatment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of ambrisentan and bosentan in patients with PAH., Methods: Clinical trials were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL/CCTR), EMBASE and PubMed databases. Weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes (6-min walk distance [6MWD] and Borg dyspnoea index [BDI]). Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated for binary outcomes, including clinical worsening, discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and liver dysfunction. Surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the treatments in each index., Results: Five clinical trials from four published studies (total patients: n = 920) were included. Ambrisentan and bosentan showed no significant difference in 6MWD (MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -27.87, 25.31, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.73, bosentan 0.77), BDI (MD: -0.16; 95% CI: -0.98, 0.65, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.83, bosentan 0.66), clinical worsening (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.33, 2.94, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.75, bosentan 0.74) and discontinuation due to AEs (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.11, 5.86, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.47, bosentan 0.57). However, ambrisentan was significantly better than bosentan with respect to abnormal liver function (HR: 23.18; 95% CI: 2.24, 377.20, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.99, bosentan 0.02)., What Is New and Conclusion: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that ambrisentan was similar to bosentan in efficacy, while it exhibited better tolerability with respect to abnormal liver function in comparison with bosentan, in patients with PAH., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Bosentan is a high-affinity antagonist of endothelin receptors and one of the earliest examples for target-mediated drug disposition [a type of nonlinear pharmacokinetics (PKs) caused by saturable target binding]. The previous physiologically based PK (PBPK) modeling indicated that the nonlinear PKs of bosentan was explainable by considering saturable hepatic uptake. However, it remained unexamined to what extent the saturable target binding contributes to the nonlinear PKs of bosentan. Here, we developed a PBPK model incorporating saturable target binding and hepatic uptake and analyzed the clinical bosentan PK data using the cluster Gauss-Newton method (CGNM). The PBPK model without target binding fell short in capturing the bosentan concentrations below 100 nM, based on the PK profiles and the goodness-of-fit plot. Both global and local identifiability analyses (using the CGNM and Fisher information matrix, respectively) informed that the target binding parameters were identifiable only if the observations from the lowest dose (10 mg) were included. By analyzing blood PK profiles alone, the PBPK model with target binding yielded practically identifiable target binding parameters and predicted the maximum target occupancies of 0.6-0.8 at clinical bosentan doses. Our results indicate that target binding, albeit not a major contributor to the nonlinear bosentan PKs, may offer a prediction of target occupancy from blood PK profiles alone and potential guidance on achieving optimal efficacy outcomes, under the condition when the high-affinity drug target is responsible for the efficacy of interest and when the dose ranges cover varying degrees of target binding. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: By incorporating saturable target binding, our physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model predicted in vivo target occupancy of bosentan based only on the blood concentration-time profiles obtained from a wide range of doses. Our analysis highlights the potential utility of PBPK models that incorporate target binding in predicting target occupancy in vivo., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s).)

Introduction :Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn (PPHN) is a life-threatening neonatal condition, mostly treated with inhaled nitric oxide (iNO), intravenous prostaglandins, oral bosentan, sildenafil and tadalafil. However, the utility of non-oral agents is limited in PPHN for their side effects and inconvenient deliveries. Therefore, oral agents such as bosentan, sildenafil and tadalafil are becoming appealing for their satisfactory efficacy, easy mode of administration and acceptable side effects. Areas covered : We conducted a comprehensive search on Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Sciences concerning the use of bosentan, sildenafil and tadalafil to treat PPHN and summarized their efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics. Expert opinion : Current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the favorable responses and tolerable side effects of bosentan and sildenafil. Nevertheless, those RCTs are small and only one study has described the pharmacokinetics of sildenafil in neonates. Accordingly, bosentan, sildenafil and tadalafil remain off-label in clinical use. More well-designed RCTs with large samples and long-term follow-up and pharmacometrics studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of bosentan, sildenafil and tadalafil in PPHN.

Background: Recently published meta-analyses did not discriminate between drug agents used for initial and sequential combination therapy. Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of drugs specific for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as add-on therapies based on 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Methods: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until December 9, 2018, for the randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on primarily adult patients diagnosed with PAH. Data extracted from applicable RCTs were as follows: for 6MWD mean change from baseline, the total number of patients, and the number of patients with events, per treatment. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in a Bayesian framework. Results: A total of 16 RCTs were eligible for analysis, with 4112 patients. Add-on therapy with tadalafil or inhaled treprostinil performed better than endothelin receptor antagonists alone [27 m; 95% credible interval (CrI): (11, 43); and 19 m; 95% CrI: (10, 27); respectively]. Add-on therapy with macitentan or bosentan performed better than phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors alone [26 m; 95% CrI: (6.4, 45); and 22 m; 95% CrI: (5.1, 38); respectively]. Differences in all-cause mortality and discontinuation due to AEs were nonsignificant. Conclusion and Relevance: Our NMA evaluated efficacy and safety of add-on therapies in patients with PAH. None of the previous meta-analyses evaluated RCTs focusing solely on patients pretreated with another PAH-specific drug therapy. Our results support guideline recommendations on combination therapy in PAH patients and add the quantitative perspective on which sequential therapy demonstrated the greatest effect size.