Moles, Victor

Abstract Background Impaired RV-PA coupling portends a poor prognosis in PAH, and right ventricular free wall strain/systolic pulmonary artery pressure (RVFWS/sPAP) has been reported as a measure of RV-PA coupling. Furthermore, increased RVFWS and right atrial area (RAA), as well as decreased pulmonary artery compliance (PAC) are associated with increased mortality risk in PAH. Seralutinib is a novel, small molecule kinase inhibitor that targets PDGFR, CSF1R, and c-KIT administered via dry powder inhaler. TORREY, a phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study of inhaled seralutinib in patients with PAH (NCT04456998) met its primary endpoint, demonstrating a significant reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) from baseline (BL) to Week 24 compared to placebo. In addition, seralutinib significantly decreased NT-proBNP. Purpose To test the hypothesis that seralutinib would improve RVFWS/sPAP and other measures of right heart function after 24 weeks of treatment compared to placebo in the TORREY study. Methods Eighty-six patients with WHO Group 1 PH (Functional Class II, III), ages ≥18 years, pulmonary vascular resistance ≥400 dyne*s/cm5, and on stable PAH standard of care therapy (the majority of whom were on double and triple therapy with approved PAH medications) were enrolled. Right heart catheterisation (RHC) and full echocardiography were performed at BL and Week 24 and at BL, Week 12, and Week 24, respectively; both were analysed in a blinded central laboratory. To calculate RVFWS/sPAP, the pulmonary artery systolic pressure from RHC was used. PAC was calculated from RHC data with the formula (SV/(PAS-PAD)). Statistical analysis was performed using ANCOVA. Results At Week 24, the change in RVFWS/sPAP was lower in the seralutinib group compared to placebo (Table). The changes in RVFWS and RAA were lower in the seralutinib group vs placebo at Week 12 and Week 24 (Table). Change in NT-proBNP correlated with change in RAA (r = 0.43). At Week 24, change in PAC was greater in the seralutinib group (-0.02 ± 0.085 placebo, 0.19 ± 0.089 seralutinib; LSMD 0.22 (0.104) p = 0.04). There was no effect of seralutinib on left ventricular ejection fraction. Conclusion Treatment with seralutinib was associated with a significant reduction of RVFWS/sPAP. In addition, significant differences in RVFWS itself, RAA, and PAC were observed. These treatment effects support improved RV-PA coupling and right heart function. In conjunction with concordant reductions in PVR and NT-proBNP, these data suggest potential favourable effects of seralutinib in PAH. Seralutinib is in clinical development as a potential new treatment option for patients with PAH.

AbstractAlthough pulmonary hypertension (PH) is widely prevalent in India, care delivery for this condition has unique challenges in a lower middle‐income country (LMIC). To describe care delivery for patients with PH and associated barriers in India. We interviewed physicians across eight healthcare systems in India about PH clinical care using semi‐structured enquiries to understand care delivery and associated challenges in their specific practice as well as the associated health system. Qualitative analysis was performed using content analysis methodology. Physicians reported that common causes for PH in their practice were rheumatic mitral valve disease, coronary artery disease, and congenital heart disease (CHD). No center had a dedicated PH program. Only one center had a specific protocol for PH management. Diagnostic evaluations were limited, and right heart catheterizations were recommended for patients with CHD. Pulmonary vasodilator therapy was used for severe symptoms or markers of severe disease. Agents used to treat PH were widely variable across physicians and prostacyclins are unavailable in India. Barriers included limited training in PH for physicians, lack of consensus guidelines for PH specific to LMIC, and lack of financial incentives for health care systems to organize dedicated PH programs. Other barriers included poor patient health literacy and socioeconomic barriers that limit ability to test and treat PH. PH care delivery in India is variable with widely differing clinical practices. Dedicated training in PH management and establishing guidelines specific to LMIC like India can form the first step forward.