Burger, Charles D.

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.

Abstract Rationale Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) is a progressive cystic lung disease that predominantly affects women and can worsen with pregnancy, estrogen treatment, and the menstrual cycle, suggesting an important role for estrogen in disease pathogenesis. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of the aromatase inhibitor letrozole in the treatment of LAM. Methods Seventeen postmenopausal women with LAM were enrolled in this phase II trial and randomized to receive letrozole 2.5 mg daily (n = 9) or placebo (n = 8) for a period of 12 months. Five patients in each group were also taking sirolimus at baseline and remained on the drug throughout the treatment period. Lung function, exercise capacity, quality of life, and serum vascular endothelial growth factor D (VEGF-D) were measured at baseline and at 3-month intervals. Results Fifteen patients completed the study. Two patients withdrew. There were no differences in adverse events in the letrozole and placebo groups. The target enrollment of 25 patients per arm was not met, so the efficacy of letrozole could not be assessed as planned. After adjusting for sirolimus use, we found that the rate of change in FEV1 for all subjects was −3 ± 3 ml/mo (P = 0.4), and for serum VEGF-D, the rate of change was −0.024 ± 0.009 pg/ml/mo (P = 0.015), showing a steeper decline in the letrozole group (−0.029 ± 0.013; P = 0.025). All patients who were taking sirolimus had a reduction in VEGF-D levels from baseline to the last visit, compared with only half of the patients who were not taking sirolimus. In a post hoc analysis, eight matched letrozole-treated–placebo-treated pairs were constructed, six of which demonstrated better FEV1 improvement for the letrozole-treated patients. Conclusions Letrozole treatment appears to be safe and well tolerated in postmenopausal patients with LAM, including those taking sirolimus. Enrollment in this trial was compromised by the publication of an effective treatment (sirolimus) in the same month as the study opened, resulting in limited power to detect treatment effects. Post hoc matched pairs exploration studies provide tentative support for additional studies of letrozole in LAM. Considering the reduced rate of lung function decline in postmenopausal patients, future studies will likely require enhanced study designs, such as selective enrollment of those with prognostic biomarkers predictive of decline. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01353209).