4.4 Review

Endothelin receptor antagonists - Clinical realities and future directions

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 2, Pages 182-191

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.fjc.0000152030.61620.57

Keywords

endothelin receptor antagonism; cardiovascular remodeling; congestive heart failure; pulmonary hypertension; vasoconstriction; hypertension; bosentan; sitaxsentan; ambrisentan; darusentan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Endothelin (ET) is among the strongest endogenous vasoconstrictors known and a potent mitogen. A rich body of experimental evidence suggests that ET contributes to vascular remodeling and end-organ damage in several cardiovascular conditions. Therefore, blockade of ET receptors has been suggested as an attractive target in a number of acute and chronic cardiovascular indications, including pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), systemic hypertension, and heart failure. To date, clinical studies have confirmed expectations in PAH and yielded promising initial results in systemic hypertension, which are currently awaiting confirmation in large-scale trials. In contrast, no added benefit could be demonstrated in large clinical trials on top of current standard treatment in both acute and chronic heart failure. Further clinical development in heart failure has therefore been suspended. Other indications that are currently being studied clinically or would possibly merit clinical trials include acute myocardial ischemia and reperfusion, cerebral vasospasm after intracranial bleeding, glaucoma, acute severe pancreatitis, systemic sclerosis, (diabetic) renal failure, restenosis after angioplasty/stent implantation, and late transplant rejection. This article critically reviews the available clinical data on ET receptor antagonism in cardiovascular indications against the background of the underlying preclinical research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available