Effects of macitentan and selexipag across prognostic age groups in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Age affects disease severity and patient outcomes in pulmonary arterial hypertension. This post-hoc analysis identified prognostic age groups and associated macitentan/selexipag treatment effects. METHODS Randomized trials evaluated macitentan (SERAPHIN; NCT00660179) and selexipag (GRIPHON; NCT01106014) versus placebo (primary endpoint: time to morbidity/mortality [M/M]). This analysis defined age thresholds differentiating M/M risk in patients randomized to placebo (Cox regression determining treatment effect by age). RESULTS Three age groups (< 35, 35–64, ≥ 65 years) showed good M/M risk discrimination (c-statistic 0.69, SERAPHIN; 0.66, GRIPHON). M/M risk was higher in placebo patients < 35 versus 35–64 years (SERAPHIN: hazard ratio [HR] 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–2.72, p = 0.02; GRIPHON: HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.28–2.56, p < 0.001). M/M risk trended higher in patients ≥ 65 versus 35–64 years (SERAPHIN: HR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89–2.69, p = 0.12; GRIPHON (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75–1.55, p = 0.69). M/M risk was lower with macitentan/selexipag versus placebo: macitentan < 35 (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25–0.78; p = 0.005), 35–64 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33–0.76; p < 0.001), ≥ 65 years (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.30–1.58; p = 0.38); selexipag < 35 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32–0.78; p = 0.002), 35–64 (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54–0.96; p = 0.03), ≥ 65 years (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33–0.91; p = 0.02). Adverse-event discontinuations were similar. CONCLUSIONS The benefit (vs placebo) of macitentan/selexipag on reducing risk of M/M events was consistent across all ages, including the younger group where significant treatment effects were observed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".