Efficacy and Safety of Macitentan Across Pulmonary Hypertension Phenotypes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BackgroundMacitentan is a dual endothelin receptor antagonist used in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and has also been studied in other forms of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Evidence across PH phenotypes has been heterogeneous. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of macitentan compared with concurrent control therapies across PH phenotypes and to explore whether treatment effects differ according to PH classification. MethodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database were searched from inception through June 2026. Randomized and non-randomized comparative studies of patients with PH receiving macitentan were eligible. Prespecified efficacy outcomes were 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP), and cardiac index; prespecified safety outcomes included mortality and adverse events. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. ResultsFourteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Macitentan was associated with a greater reduction in PVR (MD, -134.50 dyn.s.cm; 95% CI, -226.10 to -42.86) and an increase in cardiac index (MD, 0.44 L/min/m; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.67). No statistically significant difference was observed for 6MWD (MD, 5.04 m; 95% CI, -15.06 to 25.14) or mPAP (MD, -2.70 mmHg; 95% CI, -6.46 to 1.05). In pooled safety analyses, mortality was lower and risks of anemia, peripheral edema, and discontinuation due to adverse events were higher with macitentan. Heterogeneity and the small number of studies within several phenotype-specific analyses limited the precision of subgroup findings. ConclusionsMacitentan-containing therapy was associated with favorable changes in selected hemodynamic outcomes but not with a statistically significant improvement in 6MWD or mPAP. The safety findings were characterized by higher risks of anemia, peripheral edema, and treatment discontinuation. These results should be interpreted in the context of differences in PH phenotype, dose, comparator, study design, and outcome measurement.