4.5 Article

Efficacy of 1, 5, and 20 mg oral sildenafil in the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a randomized, double-blind study with open-label extension

期刊

BMC PULMONARY MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-017-0374-x

关键词

Sildenafil; Clinical trial; Pulmonary hypertension; Exercise test; Echocardiography; Dose

资金

  1. Pfizer Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In a previous study, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) improvement with sildenafil was not dose dependent at the 3 doses tested (20, 40, and 80 mg 3 times daily [TID]). This study assessed whether lower doses were less effective than the approved 20-mg TID dosage. Methods: Treatment-naive patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind sildenafil 1, 5, or 20 mg TID; 12 weeks of open-label sildenafil 20 mg TID followed. Changes from baseline in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) for sildenafil 1 or 5 mg versus 20 mg TID were compared using a Williams test. Hemodynamics, functional class, and biomarkers were assessed. Results: The study was prematurely terminated for non-safety reasons, with 129 of 219 planned patients treated. At week 12, 6MWD change from baseline was significantly greater for sildenafil 20 versus 1 mg (P = 0.011) but not versus 5 mg. At week 24, 6MWD increases from baseline were larger in those initially randomized to 20 versus 5 or 1 mg (74 vs 50 and 47 m, respectively). At week 12, changes in hemodynamic parameters were generally small and variable between treatment groups; odds ratios for improvement in functional class were not statistically significantly different. Improvements in B-type natriuretic peptide levels were significantly greater with sildenafil 20 versus 1 but not 5 mg. Conclusions: Sildenafil 20 mg TID appeared to be more effective than 1 mg TID for improving 6MWD; sildenafil 5 mg TID appeared to have similar clinical and hemodynamic effects as 20 mg TID.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据