Characteristics and outcomes of patients developing pulmonary hypertension associated with proteasome inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has been described in patients treated with proteasome inhibitors (PIs). Our objective was to evaluate the association between PIs and PAH. Methods Characteristics of incident PAH cases previously treated with carfilzomib or bortezomib were analysed from the French pulmonary hypertension registry and the VIGIAPATH programme from 2004 to 2023, concurrently with a pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis using the World Health Organization (WHO) global database (VigiBase) and a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Results 11 incident cases of PI-associated PAH were identified (six with carfilzomib and five with bortezomib) with a female:male ratio of 2.7:1, a median age of 61 years, and a median delay between PI first exposure and PAH of 6 months. Four patients died (two from right heart failure, one from respiratory distress and one from an unknown cause). At diagnosis, six were in New York Heart Association Functional Class III/IV with severe haemodynamic impairment (median mean pulmonary arterial pressure 39 mmHg, cardiac index 2.45 L·min−1·m−2and pulmonary vascular resistance 7.2 WU). In the WHO pharmacovigilance database, 169 cases of PH associated with PI were reported since 2013 with significant signals of disproportionate reporting (SDR) for carfilzomib, regardless of the definition of cases or control group. However, SDR for bortezomib were inconsistent. The systematic review identified 17 clinical trials, and carfilzomib was associated with a significantly higher risk of dyspnoea, severe dyspnoea and PH compared with bortezomib. Conclusion PIs may induce PAH in patients undergoing treatment, with carfilzomib emitting a stronger signal than bortezomib, and these patients should be monitored closely.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".