Search

Treprostinil is a prostacyclin analogue that targets multiple cellular receptors to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). In certain scenarios, patients may require aggressive treprostinil titration. Several studies have demonstrated that higher doses of treprostinil lead to greater clinical benefit. Data supports successful transitions from parenteral to oral treprostinil; however, administration routes, transition duration, and transition setting vary in the real-world. The EXPEDITE clinical trial (NCT03497689) prospectively studied whether rapid parenteral treprostinil induction can be used to achieve high doses of oral treprostinil (total daily dose: ≥12 mg) in prostacyclin naïve PAH patients. Parenteral prostacyclin induction may be more appropriate for patients who need to reach therapeutic dosing more urgently than longer titration durations reported with conventional de novo oral treprostinil initiation. This summary provides strategies utilized in EXPEDITE. Parenteral treprostinil was initiated at 2 ng/kg/min intravenously or subcutaneously; clinicians determined the frequency and dose increment of up-titration. Two distinct transition schedules from parenteral to oral treprostinil were employed: rapid cross-titration in an inpatient setting (median: 2 days) or gradual cross-titration in an outpatient setting (median: 5 days). Patient status was closely monitored after transition; oral treprostinil dose was titrated to clinical effect and tolerability. Factors considered when individualizing dosing strategies included parenteral and oral treprostinil target doses, nursing support, patient education, medication counseling and adverse events management. EXPEDITE demonstrated the time to a therapeutic dose of oral treprostinil is significantly shorter when utilizing a short-term parenteral induction strategy and may be suitable for patients requiring aggressive titration of oral treprostinil., Competing Interests: J. F. Kingrey is part of the speaker bureau for United Therapeutics, Bayer pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, attends advisory boards for United Therapeutics, Bayer, and Janssen, consults for United Therapeutics, Bayer, Janssen, and conducts research for United Therapeutics, Janssen, Acceleron, Gossamer Bio. C. E. Miller is part of the speaker bureau for United Therapeutics, Janssen, and Bayer, attends advisory boards for United Therapeutics and Janssen, consults for United Therapeutics, and conducts clinical research for United Therapeutics, Janssen, Bayer, and Insmed. J. S. Smith serves as a speaker for and has received research funds from Bayer and United Therapeutics. V. Franco has served on advisory boards for United Therapeutics and has supported research for United Therapeutics, Merck, Acceleron, Johnson and Johnson, Respira, Aerovate, Cereno, and Abbott. R. Zolty has received payments for consulting on behalf of United Therapeutics, Bayer, and Janssen/Johnson and Johnson. R. J. Oudiz has received grants from Acceleron/Merck, Gossamer Bio, Insmed, Janssen, and United Therapeutics and honoraria/speaker fees from Merck, Janssen, and United Therapeutics. J. M. Elwing consults for United Therapeutics, Altavant, Aerovate, Bayer, Gossamer Bio, Liquida, and Merck and has received research support and grants from Janssen, United Therapeutics, Liquidia, Phase Bio, Gossamer Bio, Bayer, Acceleron, Altavant, Aerovate, Tenax, and Pharmosa. J. H. Huston has conducted clinical trials for Acceleron, CardiolRx, and Aadi Bioscience. L. Melendres‐Groves has received honoraria and/or fees for consultancy and advisory committees for United Therapeutics Corporation outside of submitted works. A. Ravichandran reports personal fees from United Therapeutics, Bayer, and Actelion outside the submitted work. V. Balasubramanian serves as a consultant for United Therapeutics. B. Wu, S. Hwang, S. Seaman, and M. Broderick are paid employees of United Therapeutics. F. F. Rahaghi has consulted for United Therapeutics, Janssen PH, Merck, and Altavant; served as a speaker for United Therapeutics, Janssen PH, and Bayer; and received research funding from Janssen, Bayer, Merck, Gossamer, and Bellerophon., (© 2023 The Authors. Pulmonary Circulation published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute.)

Dual combination therapy with a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (PDE5i) and endothelin receptor antagonist is recommended for most patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The RESPITE and REPLACE studies suggest that switching from a PDE5i to a soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) activator may provide clinical improvement in this situation. The optimal approach to escalation or transition of therapy in this or other scenarios is not well defined. We developed an expert consensus statement on the transition to sGC and other treatment escalations and transitions in PAH using a modified Delphi process. The Delphi process used a panel of 20 physicians with expertise in PAH. Panelists answered three questionnaires on the management of treatment escalations and transitions in PAH. The initial questionnaire included open-ended questions. Later questionnaires consolidated the responses into statements that panelists rated on a Likert scale from -5 ( strongly disagree ) to +5 ( strongly agree ) to determine consensus. The Delphi process produced several consensus recommendations. Escalation should be considered for patients who are at high risk or not achieving treatment goals, by adding an agent from a new class, switching from oral to parenteral prostacyclins, or increasing the dose. Switching to a new class or within a class should be considered if tolerability or other considerations unrelated to efficacy are affecting adherence. Switching from a PDE5i to an SGC activator may benefit patients with intermediate risk who are not improving on their present therapy. These consensus-based recommendations may be helpful to clinicians and beneficial for patients when evidence-based guidance is unavailable., Competing Interests: Franck F. Rahaghi reports consultation, research, and speakership honoraria from Bayer and Janssen, consultation and speakership from United Therapeutics, and consultation fees from Acceleron. Vijay P. Balasubramanian reports a research grant from United Therapeutics and serves on a speakers bureau for Bayer. Robert C. Bourge reports research grant support to my institution from United Therapeutics and Bayer, and service on a Scientific Advisory Board at United Therapeutics. Murali M. Chakinala reports grants or contracts from Actelion/Janssen, Bayer, Medtronic, NIH, Reata, Liquidia, Phase Bio, Complexa, United Therapeutics, Altavant, Trio Health Analytics, Reata, Acceleron, Arena, and Gossamer; consulting fees from Altavant, Vaderis Therapeutics, Aerovate, Reata, VWave, and Arena; honoraria from Bayer, Gilead, Simply Speaking, WebMD, and United Therapeutics; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Actelion/Janssen, United Therapeutics, Bayer, Acceleron, Reata, and Gilead; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Actelion/Janssen, Express Scripts, Phase Bio, Altavant, Gossamer, United Therapeutics, Bayer, Acceleron, and Liquidia; and leadership or a fiduciary role in the Pulmonary Hypertension Association and the Cure HHT Global Research and Medical Advisory Board. Michael S. Eggert reports research contracts with United Therapeutics (BREEZE and ADVANCE Outcomes), Acceleron, and Actelion. Jean M. Elwing reports grants from Actelion, Acceleron, Reata, United Therapeutics, Liquidia, Phase Bio, Complexa, Gossamer Bio, Bayer, Arena, Eiger, Akros, Bellerophon, and Lung LLC and consulting fees from United Therapeutics, Acceleron, Liquidia, Altavant, Bayer, Gossamer Bio, Actelion, Bayer. Jeremy Feldman reports consulting and giving talks for Bayer, United Therapeutics, and Jansen. Christopher King reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Genentech, United Therapeutics, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served on advisory boards for and is on the Speakers’ Bureau of Actelion, Boehringer‐Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics. James R. Klinger reports that his institution receives research funding from United Technologies, service on a Steering Committee and a Clinical Outcomes Committee for Bayer, and a leadership role in the Pulmonary Hypertension Association. Stephen C. Mathai reports personal fees from United Therapeutics; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from United Therapeutics, Actelion, and Bayer, and leadership or a fiduciary role in the PCORI Rare Disease Advisory Panel and the World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension. John Wesley McConnell reports consulting fees from Actelion, Bayer, Gossamer, Altavant, and Liquidia; honoraria from Actelion, Bayer, Simply Speaking, Impact PH, and Reata, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Actelion, Liquidia, Gossamer, and Altavant. Harold I. Palevsky reports honoraria for serving on scientific advisory boards for Acceleron, Actelion/Janssen, PhaseBio and United Therapeutics, and serving on a DSMB for United Therapeutics. Ricardo Restrepo‐Jaramillo reports serving on speaker's bureau for United Therapeutics, Bayer, and Actelion. Zeenat Safdar reports serving on a speakers bureau, consultation and advisory boards for Actelion, United Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Roche. Jeffrey S. Sager reports personal fees from Bayer pharmaceuticals, grants and personal fees from United Therapeutics, grants and personal fees from Janssen (J and J), and grants from Reata outside the submitted work. Namita Sood reports a speaking fee from Bayer. Roxana Sulica reports research grants from Bayer, United Therapeutics, Complexa, and Reata, and serves on advisory boards for Actelion, Bayer, United Therapeutics, and Reata. R. James White reports research grants from United Therapeutics, Reata, Bayer, Merck, and Janssen and consulting fees from Merck and Bayer. Nicholas S. Hill reports honoraria from Axon Research for this study; grants to his institution from Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, and United Therapeutics; consulting fees from United Therapeutics; and participation in Data Safety Monitoring Boards for United Therapeutics and Pfizer. All authors had access to the Delphi questionnaire analysis and data and participated in the review, revision, and approval of the content of the manuscript for submission. Charles D. Burger reports no disclosures or conflicts of interest., (© 2022 The Authors. Pulmonary Circulation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute.)

In patients treated with macitentan (Opsumit®, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Basel, Switzerland) for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), prevention and/or effective management of treatment-related adverse events may improve adherence. However, management of these adverse events can be challenging and the base of evidence and clinical experience for macitentan is limited. In the absence of evidence, consensus recommendations from physicians experienced in using macitentan to treat PAH may benefit patients and physicians who are using macitentan. Consensus recommendations were developed by a panel of physicians experienced with macitentan and PAH using a modified Delphi process. Over three iterations, panelists developed and refined a series of statements on the use of macitentan in PAH and rated their agreement with each statement on a Likert scale. The panel of 18 physicians participated and developed a total of 118 statements on special populations, add-on therapy, drug-drug interactions, warnings and precautions, hospitalization and functional class, and adverse event management. The resulting consensus recommendations are intended to provide practical guidance on real-world issues in using macitentan to treat patients with PAH.

Oral treprostinil was recently labeled for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Similar to the period immediately after parenteral treprostinil was approved, there is a significant knowledge gap for practicing physicians who might prescribe oral treprostinil. Despite its oral route of delivery, use of the drug is challenging because of the requirement for careful titration and management of drug-related adverse effects. We aimed to create a consensus document combining available evidence with expert opinion to provide guidance for use of oral treprostinil. Following a methodology commonly used in business and social sciences (the 'Delphi Process'), two investigators from the oral treprostinil (Freedom) studies created a series of statements based on available evidence and the package insert. The set of 'best practice' statements was circulated to nine other Freedom trial investigators. Their comments were incorporated into the document as new line items for further vote and comment. The subsequent document was put to vote line by line (scale of -5 to +5) and a final statement was drafted. Consensus recommendations include initial therapy with 0.125 mg for treatment naÿ patients, three times daily dosing, aggressive use of antidiarrheal medication, and a strong preference for use of the drug in combination with other approved PAH therapies. This process was particularly valuable in providing guidance for the management of adverse events (where essentially no data is available). The Delphi process was useful to codify investigator experience and subsequently develop investigator consensus about practical issues for physicians who may wish to prescribe oral treprostinil.

We aimed to adapt the shared medical appointment (SMA) model to the care of pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients and evaluate patient satisfaction. Our SMA team included a PH specialist, a PH nurse, and one research fellow. Eight to twelve PH patients with a family member were invited during office visits and by phone calls. Attendance was verified and encouraged by phone calls and informational letters. The meetings started with a 30-minute presentation on various PH topics, which was followed by each patient's individual visit and a focused examination in front of the group, allowing group questions and interaction. Of the total number of patients (n = 53), 84% stated that they would attend a future SMA. The care provided was rated excellent to very good by 98% of the patients. Ninety-two percent stated that they improved their understanding of the disease and treatment options, and 59% acknowledged a preference for the group visit over the private visit. Twenty-five percent of patients stated that they were very likely to likely to some extent to agree to change or seek a change in treatment modality on the basis of conversation with other patients in the SMA. The majority of our patients expressed no privacy concerns before the meeting (76%), and even more expressed no such concerns afterward (88%). In conclusion, the SMA model allows PH patients to increase understanding of their disease process while integrating peer support, promoting social interaction, and addressing patients' emotional needs. Other (rare) pulmonary diseases may benefit from this model.