Why the study?
Does selective endothelin-receptor antagonism provide more clinical benefit than non-selective antagonism in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension?
Does selective endothelin-receptor antagonism provide more clinical benefit than non-selective antagonism in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension?
There is currently no clinically meaningful difference between selective and non-selective endothelin receptor antagonists for PAH, suggesting drug choice should be based on side effects and drug interactions rather than receptor selectivity.
No demonstrated selectivity advantage among ETRAs in PAH; leaves open whether selective agents improve outcomes versus non-selective ones.
Treatment options for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have considerably improved in the past few years. Endothelin (ET)-receptor antagonism has been established as a first-line option for the majority of PAH patients. Endothelin-receptor antagonists (ETRAs) comprise sulfonamide and non-sulfonamide agents with different affinities for ET-receptor subtypes (ET(A) and ET(B)), and the focus of development has shifted from drugs with less selectivity to those with high selectivity. There is ongoing debate as to whether selective or non-selective ET-receptor antagonism is more beneficial in the treatment of PAH. This paper reviews the current evidence from experimental and clinical studies obtained from a thorough literature search focusing on the three marketed drugs bosentan, sitaxentan, and ambrisentan. A clinically meaningful difference among the three approved ETRAs with respect to their ET-receptor selectivity could not be demonstrated to date. Therefore, in clinical practice, other features are likely to be of greater relevance when considering treatment, such as the potential for serious drug-drug interactions, convenience of dosing schedule, or rates of limiting side effects. These characteristics bear more relation to the chemical or pharmacological properties of the drugs than to receptor selectivity itself.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Opitz et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: