MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285040754 · doi:10.1007/s12325-022-02199-x

Long-Term Safety, Tolerability and Survival in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Treated with Macitentan: Results from the SERAPHIN Open-Label Extension

2022· article· en· W4285040754 on OpenAlexaff
Rogério Souza, Marion Delcroix, Nazzareno Galiè, Pavel Jansa, Sanjay Mehta, Tomás Pulido, Lewis J. Rubin, B.K.S. Sastry, Gérald Simonneau, Olivier Sitbon, Adam Torbicki, Neli Boyanova, Liliya Chamitava, Cláudia Stein, Richard N. Channick

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersActelion PharmaceuticalsFaculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol UniversityNational Taiwan UniversityTaichung Veterans General HospitalMinistry of Health of the Russian FederationNational Taiwan University HospitalNIH Clinical CenterAkademiska Sjukhuset
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityInternal medicineAdverse effectClinical endpointPlaceboPulmonary hypertensionSafety profileClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In SERAPHIN, a long-term, event-driven, double-blind randomised controlled trial in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), macitentan 10 mg significantly reduced the risk of morbidity/mortality compared with placebo. Its open-label extension study (SERAPHIN OL) further assessed long-term safety and tolerability of macitentan 10 mg in PAH patients. METHODS: Patients in SERAPHIN who completed the double-blind treatment period or experienced a morbidity event during the study could enter SERAPHIN OL. Patients received macitentan 10 mg once daily, and safety and survival were assessed until end of treatment (+ 28 days). Two overlapping sets were analysed for safety: (1) all patients in SERAPHIN OL (OL safety set); (2) patients randomised to macitentan 10 mg in SERAPHIN (long-term safety/survival set). Survival was evaluated as an exploratory endpoint in the latter set. RESULTS: Of 742 patients randomised in SERAPHIN, 550 (74.1%) entered SERAPHIN OL (OL safety set); 242 patients were randomised to macitentan 10 mg in SERAPHIN (long-term safety/survival set). Median (min, max) exposure to macitentan 10 mg was 40.1 (0.1, 130.5) months (2074.7 patient-years; OL safety set) and 54.7 (0.1, 141.3) months (1151.0 patient-years; long-term safety/survival set). Safety in both analysis sets was comparable to the known safety profile of macitentan. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates (95% CI) at 1, 5, 7 and 9 years were 95.0% (91.3, 97.1), 73.3% (66.6, 78.9), 62.6% (54.6, 69.6) and 52.7% (43.6, 61.0), respectively (long-term safety/survival set; median follow-up: 5.9 years). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides the longest follow-up for safety and survival published to date for any PAH therapy. The safety profile of macitentan 10 mg over this extensive treatment period was in line with that observed in SERAPHIN. As the majority of patients were receiving other PAH therapy at macitentan initiation, our study provides additional insight into the long-term safety of macitentan, including as part of combination therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00660179 and NCT00667823.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207