Comparison of Macitentan and Bosentan on Right Ventricular Remodeling in a Rat Model of Non-vasoreactive Pulmonary Hypertension.

AIMS: We compared the efficacy of macitentan, a novel dual endothelin A/endothelin B receptor antagonist, with that of another dual endothelin receptor antagonist, bosentan, in a rat model of non-vasoreactive pulmonary hypertension (PH) with particular emphasis on right ventricular (RV) remodeling. METHODS AND RESULTS: Unlike monocrotaline or hypoxic/sugen rats, bleomycin-treated rats presented a non-vasoreactive PH characterized by the absence of pulmonary dilatation to adenosine. We therefore chose the bleomycin rat model to compare the effects of the maximally effective doses of macitentan and bosentan on pulmonary vascular and RV remodeling. Macitentan (100 mg·kg(-1)·d(-1)), but not bosentan (300 mg·kg(-1)·d(-1)), significantly prevented pulmonary vascular remodeling, RV hypertrophy, and cardiomyocyte diameter increase. Cardiac protection by macitentan was associated with a significant attenuation of genes related to cell hypertrophy and extracellular matrix remodeling. Microautoradiography and high performance liquid chromatography analysis showed greater distribution of macitentan than bosentan in the RV and pulmonary tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Macitentan was more efficacious than bosentan in preventing the development of pulmonary and RV hypertrophies in a model of non-vasoreactive PH. Greater ability to distribute into the tissue could contribute to the greater structural improvement by macitentan compared with bosentan.

Vascular Effects of Endothelin Receptor Antagonists Depends on Their Selectivity for ETA Versus ETB Receptors and on the Functionality of Endothelial ETB Receptors.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to characterize the role of Endothelin (ET) type B receptors (ETB) on vascular function in healthy and diseased conditions and demonstrate how it affects the pharmacological activity of ET receptor antagonists (ERAs). METHODS: The contribution of the ETB receptor to vascular relaxation or constriction was characterized in isolated arteries from healthy and diseased rats with systemic (Dahl-S) or pulmonary hypertension (monocrotaline). Because the role of ETB receptors is different in pathological vis-à-vis normal conditions, we compared the efficacy of ETA-selective and dual ETA/ETB ERAs on blood pressure in hypertensive rats equipped with telemetry. RESULTS: In healthy vessels, ETB receptors stimulation with sarafotoxin S6c induced vasorelaxation and no vasoconstriction. In contrast, in arteries of rats with systemic or pulmonary hypertension, endothelial ETB-mediated relaxation was lost while vasoconstriction on stimulation by sarafotoxin S6c was observed. In hypertensive rats, administration of the dual ETA/ETB ERA macitentan on top of a maximal effective dose of the ETA-selective ERA ambrisentan further reduced blood pressure, indicating that ETB receptors blockade provides additional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these data suggest that in pathology, dual ETA/ETB receptor antagonism can provide superior vascular effects compared with ETA-selective receptor blockade.