Optimizing endothelin receptor antagonist use in the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endothelin receptor antagonism has emerged as an important therapeutic approach in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Bench to bedside scientific research has shown that endothelin-1 (ET-1) is overexpressed in several forms of pulmonary vascular disease and may play an important pathogenetic role in the development and progression of PAH. Oral endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) improved exercise capacity, functional status, pulmonary hemodymanics, and delayed the time to clinical worsening in several randomized placebo-controlled trials. Two ERAs are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: bosentan, a dual ERA for patients with class III and IV PAH, and ambrisentan, a selective ERA for patients with class II and III PAH. Sitaxsentan, another selective ERA, has been approved in Europe, Canada, and Australia. The objective of this review is to evaluate the available evidence describing the pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and tolerability, and patient-focused perspectives regarding the different types of endothelin receptor antagonists. Ongoing and forthcoming randomized trials are also highlighted including the approach of combining this class of drugs with other drugs that target different cellular pathways believed to be etiologically important in PAH.
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".