SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2026
Indirect Treatment Comparison of Riociguat Replacement Therapy and Selexipag Add-on Therapy in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Results From a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite standard combination therapy with endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5is), many patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) show inadequate therapeutic responses. Riociguat (a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator) and selexipag (a prostacyclin receptor agonist) are both approved as next-step therapies; however, their comparative effectiveness and safety remain unknown due to the lack of head-to-head trials. We aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of riociguat replacement and selexipag add-on therapy through an indirect treatment comparison. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with PAH receiving either riociguat or selexipag were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to 04 November 2025. This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Indirect treatment comparisons using Bucher's method were conducted within a common comparator (ERA + PDE5i) framework. Results: Three RCTs (four publications) were included: REPLACE, GRIPHON (main and post-hoc analyses), and a phase II trial. The overall risk of bias was low, except for the phase II trial, which had unclear risk due to its small sample size. Indirect comparisons showed no significant differences between the therapies for any outcome. The hazard ratio for clinical worsening was 0.167 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0019-1.495, Conclusions: We found no significant differences between riociguat replacement and selexipag add-on therapy. These findings provide comparative data to help clinicians and patients make informed treatment decisions. Further head-to-head trials are needed to confirm comparative effectiveness. This review adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The PROSPERO Registration: CRD42024524391 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024524391.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.