Treatment of pulmonary hypertension associated with COPD: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-associated pulmonary hypertension (COPD-PH) is an increasingly recognised condition which contributes to worsening dyspnoea and poor survival in COPD. It is uncertain whether specific treatment of COPD-PH, including use of medications approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), improves clinical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses potential benefits and risks of therapeutic options for COPD-PH. We searched Medline and Embase for relevant publications until September 2020. Articles were screened for studies on treatment of COPD-PH for at least 4 weeks in 10 or more patients. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently in duplicate. When possible, relevant results were pooled using the random effects model. Supplemental long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) mildly reduced mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), slowed progression of PH, and reduced mortality, but other clinical or functional benefits were not assessed. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors significantly improved systolic PAP (pooled treatment effect -5.9 mmHg; 95% CI -10.3, -1.6), but had inconsistent clinical benefits. Calcium channel blockers and endothelin receptor antagonists had limited haemodynamic, clinical, or survival benefits. Statins had limited clinical benefits despite significantly lowering systolic PAP (pooled treatment effect -4.6 mmHg; 95% CI -6.3, -2.9). This review supports guideline recommendations for LTOT in hypoxaemic COPD-PH patients as well as recommendations against treatment with PAH-targeted medications. Effective treatment of COPD-PH depends upon research into the pathobiology and future high-quality studies comprehensively assessing clinically relevant outcomes are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".