MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317915273 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac779.083

Multicenter review of a tadalafil suspension formulation in infants and children with pulmonary hypertension: a north american experience

2023· review· en· W4317915273 on OpenAlexaff
David Youssef, S Handler, Susan Richards, Catherine Sheppard, J Smith, K Tillman, Michael Pietrosanu, Erin Kirkpatrick, A Bates

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTadalafilMedicineTolerabilitySildenafilPulmonary hypertensionPulmonary arteryVascular resistanceDuctus arteriosusPediatricsInternal medicineHemodynamicsSurgeryAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a disease characterised by an increase in pulmonary vascular resistance and pulmonary artery pressure. Phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, with sildenafil the earliest among them, are widely used in the management of pediatric PAH. There has more recently been a transition to once-daily tadalafil suspensions. Herein, we present a multicenter experience detailing safety, tolerability and haemodynamic data utilizing tadalafil suspension alone or in combination for the management of pediatric PAH. Methods and materials We performed a retrospective review of all infants and children at two North American paediatric PH centres between December 2013 and April 2022. We included all patients less than 9 years of age who were treated with a tadalafil suspension after an initial treatment with sildenafil. Demographic, clinical, imaging, and laboratory data were collected. Results Over the study period, 158 children were treated with tadalafil therapy: 41 (25.9%) had group 1 PAH, 81 (51.3%) had group 3 PH, and 33 (20.9%) had group 5 PH. The median initial dose of tadalafil was 1.0 mg/kg once daily with a median time to maximum dose of 1 day. The majority of patients required the suspension formulation due to an inability to take oral tablets or the need for nasogastric or nasojejunal feeding. We observed improvements in median echocardiographic parameters in the six months following initiation, namely, in RVFAC from 34.7% (Q1 = 31.0%, Q3 = 42.0%) to 37.0% (Q1 = 31.0%, Q3 = 44.0%) and in TAPSE from 1.0 (Q1 = 0.8, Q3 = 1.7) cm to 1.3 (Q1 = 1.0, Q3 = 1.7) cm. We observed median decreases in RVSp from 51.0 (Q1 = 35.0, Q3 = 69.0) mmHg to 37.0 (Q1 = 30.0, Q3 = 50.0) mmHg and in NT pro BNP levels from 439.0 (Q1 = 217.0, Q3 = 2051.0) ng/L to 313.0 (Q1 = 193.0, Q3 = 1110.0) ng/L. Tadalafil therapy was well tolerated over the six-month period: at baseline, only four patients (2.5%) reported gastrointestinal side effects, two (1.3%) reported adverse skin adverse effects (i.e., rash and flushing), and one (0.6%) reported adverse neurological effects. At six months, 150 patients (94.9%) reported no adverse effects. Conclusion Tadalafil, a long-acting PDE5 inhibitor, when administered in a suspension formulation, has a safe and tolerable adverse effect profile once patients are established on sildenafil therapy. Following 6 months of once daily tadalafil suspension, alone or in combination, showed a trend towards improvement in clinical parameters, echocardiographic measurements, and laboratory results for pediatric PAH. All patient adverse effects were managed with non pharmacological measures and there was good patient compliance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→