Long-Term Safety, Tolerability and Survival in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Treated with Macitentan: Results from the SERAPHIN Open-Label Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".