Burger, Charles D.

AbstractInhaled treprostinil is an approved therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease in the United States. Studies have confirmed the robust benefits and safety of nebulized inhaled treprostinil, but it requires a time investment for nebulizer preparation, maintenance, and treatment. A small, portable treprostinil dry powder inhaler has been developed for the treatment of PAH. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of treprostinil inhalation powder (TreT) in patients currently treated with treprostinil inhalation solution. Fifty‐one patients on a stable dose of treprostinil inhalation solution enrolled and transitioned to TreT at a corresponding dose. Six‐minute walk distance (6MWD), device preference and satisfaction (Preference Questionnaire for Inhaled Treprostinil Devices [PQ‐ITD]), PAH Symptoms and Impact (PAH‐SYMPACT®) questionnaire, and systemic exposure and pharmacokinetics for up to 5 h were assessed at baseline for treprostinil inhalation solution and at Week 3 for TreT. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with studies of inhaled treprostinil in patients with PAH, and there were no study drug‐related serious AEs. Statistically significant improvements occurred in 6MWD, PQ‐ITD, and PAH‐SYMPACT. Forty‐nine patients completed the 3‐week treatment phase and all elected to participate in an optional extension phase. These results demonstrate that, in patients with PAH, transition from treprostinil inhalation solution to TreT is safe, well‐tolerated, and accompanied by statistically significant improvements in key clinical assessments and patient‐reported outcomes with comparable systemic exposure between the two formulations at evaluated doses (trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03950739).

AbstractDual 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.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of an Electronic Health Record (EHR) integrated risk score for COVID-19 positive outpatients to predict 30-day risk of hospitalization. Patients and Methods: A retrospective observational study of 67 470 patients with COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test between March 12, 2020 and February 8, 2021. Risk scores were calculated based on data in the chart at the time of the incident infection. Results: The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score consisted of 13 components included age, sex, chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, end stage liver disease, end stage renal disease, hypertension, immune compromised, nursing home resident, and pregnant. Univariate analysis showed all components, except pregnancy, have significant ( P < .001) association with admission. The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score showed a Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.837 for the prediction of admission for this large cohort of COVID-19 positive patients. Conclusion: The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score is a simple score that is easily integrated into the EHR with excellent predictive performance for severe COVID-19. It can be leveraged to stratify risk for severe COVID-19 at initial contact, when considering therapeutics or in the allocation of vaccine supply.

Once patients are diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension it is important to identify the correct diagnostic group as it will have implications on the disease state management. Pulmonary hypertension is increasingly diagnosed and treated in general medical practices; however, evidence-based guidelines recommend evaluation and treatment in pulmonary hypertension centers for accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment recommendations. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 509 random patients 18 years and older who were evaluated in our pulmonary hypertension clinic from January 2005 to December 2018. 68.4% (n = 348) had their diagnostic group clarified or changed. Pulmonary hypertension was deemed an incorrect diagnosis in 12.4% (n = 63). A total of 114 patients (22.4%) had been initiated on pulmonary hypertension specific treatment prior to presentation. Pulmonary hypertension specific medication was stopped in 57 (50.0%) cases. The estimated monthly saving of the stopped medication based on wholesale acquisition costs was USD 396,988.05–419,641.05, a monthly saving of USD 6964.70–7362.12 per patient. Evaluation outside of a pulmonary hypertension center may lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate or inadequate treatment. Pulmonary arterial hypertension directed therapy improves median survival, but inappropriate therapy may cause harm; therefore, patients benefit from a specialized center with multiple resources to secure an accurate diagnosis and tailored treatment for their condition.

Abstract Background Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often results from the immune-mediated cytokine storm, triggered by granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), potentially leading to respiratory failure and death. Lenzilumab, a novel anti-human GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, neutralizes GM-CSF and demonstrated potential to improve clinical outcomes in a matched case-cohort study of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab to improve the likelihood of survival without invasive mechanical ventilation (SWOV), beyond available treatments. Methods Hypoxic patients, hospitalized with COVID-19 (n=520), requiring supplemental oxygen, but not invasive mechanical ventilation, were randomized on Day 0 to receive lenzilumab (1800mg, n=261) or placebo (n=259), and available treatments, including remdesivir and/or corticosteroids; and were followed through Day 28. Results Baseline demographics were comparable between groups: male, 64.7%; mean age, 60.5 years; median CRP, 79.0 mg/L. Patients across both groups received steroids (93.7%), remdesivir (72.4%), or both (69.1%). Lenzilumab improved the primary endpoint, likelihood of SWOV in the mITT population, by 1.54-fold (HR: 1.54; 95%CI: 1.02-2.32, p=0.0403). Lenzilumab improved SWOV by 1.91-fold (nominal p=0.0073) and 1.92-fold (nominal p=0.0067) in patients receiving remdesivir or remdesivir and corticosteroids, respectively. A key secondary endpoint of incidence of IMV, ECMO or death was also improved in patients receiving remdesivir (p=0.020) or remdesivir and corticosteroids (p=0.0180). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were similar across both groups. Conclusion Lenzilumab significantly improved SWOV in hypoxic COVID-19 patients upon hospitalization, with the greatest benefit observed in patients receiving treatment with remdesivir and corticosteroids. NCT04351152 Disclosures Zelalem Temesgem, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support) Jason Baker, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support) Christopher Polk, MD, Atea (Research Grant or Support)Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Humanigen (Research Grant or Support)Regeneron (Research Grant or Support) Claudia R. Libertin, MD, Gilead (Grant/Research Support) Colleen F. Kelley, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Moderna (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Novavax (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Viiv (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support Vincent Marconi, MD, Bayer (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Eli Lilly (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ViiV (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Victoria Catterson, PhD, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) William Aronstein, MD, PhD, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) Cameron Durrant, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Dale Chappell, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Omar Ahmed, PharmD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Gabrielle Chappell, MSc, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) Andrew Badley, M.D., AbbVie (Consultant) for the LIVE-AIR Study Group, n/a, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support)

Compared to idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), patients with portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) have worse survival. Health disparities may contribute to these differences but have not been studied. We sought to compare socioeconomic factors in patients with POPH and IPAH and to determine whether socioeconomic status and/or POPH diagnosis were associated with treatment and health‐care utilization. We performed a cross‐sectional study of adults enrolled in the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry. Patients with IPAH (n = 344) and POPH (n = 57) were compared. Compared with IPAH, patients with POPH were less likely to be college graduates (19.6% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.02) and more likely to be unemployed (54.7% vs. 30.5%, p < 0.001) and have an annual household income below poverty level (45.7% vs. 19.0%, p < 0.001). Patients with POPH had similar functional class, quality of life, 6‐min walk distance, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure with a higher cardiac index. Compared with IPAH, patients with POPH were less likely to receive combination therapy (46.4% vs. 62.2%, p = 0.03) and endothelin receptor antagonists (28.6% vs. 55.1%, p < 0.001) at enrollment with similar treatment at follow‐up. Patients with POPH had more emergency department visits (1.7 ± 2.1 vs. 0.9 ± 1.2, p = 0.009) and hospitalizations in the six months preceding enrollment (1.5 ± 2.1 vs. 0.8 ± 1.1, p = 0.02). Both POPH diagnosis and lower education level were independently associated with a higher number of emergency department visits. Compared to IPAH, patients with POPH have lower socioeconomic status, are less likely to receive initial combination therapy and endothelin receptor antagonists but have similar treatment at follow‐up, and have increased health‐care utilization.