Broderick, Meredith

AbstractRight heart (RH) structure and function are major determinants of symptoms and prognosis in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). RH imaging provides detailed information, but evidence and guidelines on the use of RH imaging in treatment decisions are limited. We conducted a Delphi study to gather expert opinion on the role of RH imaging in decision‐making for treatment escalation in PAH. A panel of 17 physicians with expertise in PAH and RH imaging used three surveys in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the role of RH imaging in PAH. Survey 1 used open‐ended questions to gather information. Survey 2 contained Likert scale and other questions intended to identify consensus on topics identified in Survey 1. Survey 3 contained Likert scale questions derived from Survey 2 and summary information on the results of Survey 2. The Delphi panel reached consensus that RH imaging is likely to improve the current risk stratification algorithms and help differentiate risk levels in patients at intermediate risk. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, right ventricular fractional area change, right atrial area, tricuspid regurgitation, inferior venae cavae diameter, and pericardial effusion should be part of routine echocardiography in PAH. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is valuable but limited by cost and access. A pattern of abnormal RH imaging results should prompt consideration of hemodynamic evaluation and possible treatment escalation. RH imaging is an important tool for decisions about treatment escalation in PAH, but systematically collected evidence is needed to clarify its role.

Abstract Background Post-hoc analyses of the FREEDOM-EV study demonstrated that addition of oral treprostinil (ORE) to background monotherapy improves risk in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Evidence is needed to understand the incremental effect of ORE added to dual background therapy with an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (PDE5)/soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator (sGC). Purpose To describe longitudinal changes in REVEAL Lite 2 and COMPERA 2.0 risk status in patients initiating ORE on dual background therapy. Methods A multisite, double-blind retrospective chart review of PAH patients was conducted by US PAH-treating physicians and included patients meeting prior diagnostic PAH criteria (mPAP ≥25 mmHg/PAWP ≤15 mmHg/PVR >3 WU), age ≥18 at diagnosis, began a PAH treatment 01/2014–03/2017, and had NT-proBNP/BNP, WHO functional class (FC), and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) at baseline visit. Baseline was most recent assessment prior to ORE initiation. This analysis included a subset of patients on dual background therapy at time of ORE initiation without prior prostacyclin use. Follow-up was evaluated in 0–6 and 6–12 months after ORE initiation. Results 30 (61.2%) of 49 ORE patients were on dual background therapy at time of ORE start; 23 had baseline assessments while on dual background therapy and were included in this analysis. At baseline, mean (SD) 6MWD was 140.9 (49.8) m and 21 (91.3%) patients were FC III. Prior to ORE, median (IQR) time on ERA was 6.6 (5.5–7.6) months and PDE5/sGC was 3.7 (3.3–5.7) months. After ORE start, median (IQR) time to follow-up was 4.3 (3.4–5.6) months in 0–6 months and 10.9 (9.6–11.6) months in 6–12 months. Using REVEAL Lite 2, baseline mean (SD) REVEAL Lite 2 risk score was 7.9 (0.8); 1 (4.4%), 2 (8.7%), and 20 (87%) patients were in the low, intermediate, and high risk strata, respectively. In 0–6 months (n=22), 13 (59.1%) patients improved and 9 (40.9%) stabilized REVEAL Lite 2 risk strata from baseline. In 6–12 months (n=22), mean (SD) REVEAL Lite 2 risk score was 6.5 (1.1); 15 patients (68.2%) improved, 6 (27.3%) stabilized, and 1 (4.6%) worsened REVEAL Lite 2 risk strata from baseline. Using COMPERA 2.0, at baseline, 1 (4.4%) patient was in the intermediate-low and 22 (95.7%) patients were in the intermediate-high risk strata. In 0–6 months (n=15), 10 (66.7%) patients improved and 5 (33.3%) patients stabilized COMPERA 2.0 risk strata from baseline. In 6–12 months (n=17), 15 (88.2%) patients improved and 2 (11.8%) stabilized COMPERA 2.0 risk strata from baseline. Conclusion Of patients initiating oral treprostinil in this study, most were on dual background therapy and at high risk by REVEAL Lite 2 or intermediate-high risk by COMPERA 2.0. This analysis suggests adding ORE to dual background therapy can improve risk status in patients, with clinical benefit attained within 6 months and continued incremental improvement through first year of therapy. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): United Therapeutics Corporation