Preston, Ioana R.

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 The INSPIRE trial was a Phase 3, open‐label, multicenter trial (LTI‐301) that enrolled patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) ≥ 18 years of age who transitioned to Yutrepia from nebulized treprostinil (Transition) or added Yutrepia to prostacyclin naïve patients on ≤2 nonprostacyclin oral therapies. The objectives of the trial were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of Yutrepia (dry‐powder formulation of treprostinil) in patients with PAH. The primary safety measures were the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Exploratory efficacy measures were also assessed during the trial. Transition patients initiated Yutrepia at a dose comparable to their nebulized treprostinil dose while prostacyclin naïve patients received 26.5‐mcg QID; up‐titration in 26.5‐mcg increments was permitted for both groups. A total of 121 patients were enrolled, of which 29 patients discontinued from the trial, with the most common reason being AEs. Eighty percent of the Transition group and 96% of the prostacyclin naïve group titrated to a dose ≥79.5 mcg QID at Day 360, respectively, with one patient achieving a dose of 212‐mcg QID. The most common AEs were cough, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, dyspnea, dizziness, throat irritation, diarrhea, chest discomfort, fatigue, and nasopharyngitis. Most of these events were considered treatment‐related though mild to moderate in severity and expected for prostacyclin therapy administered by inhalation. In an evaluation of exploratory efficacy measures, patients remained stable or improved over the 1 year of treatment. Yutrepia was found to be a convenient, safe, and well‐tolerated inhaled prostacyclin treatment option for PAH patients.

Guidelines for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) recommend sequential add‐on therapy for patients who deteriorate or fail to improve clinically. However, it is not known whether these patients also benefit from transitioning from inhaled prostacyclins to parenteral prostacyclins. We sought to characterize PAH patients receiving inhaled treprostinil who were transitioned to parenteral treprostinil. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study at 7 PAH centers and collected reasons, methods, safety, and outcome of patients transitioned from inhaled treprostinil to parenteral treprostinil. Twenty‐six patients with pulmonary hypertension in group 1, 4, or 5 transitioned from inhaled treprostinil to parenteral treprostinil (10 intravenous, 16 subcutaneous). Twenty‐four patients were also on one or two oral therapies. Reasons for transition were clinical deterioration, lack of clinical improvement, and pregnancy (19, 6, and 1 patients, respectively). Transitions occurred in hospital, clinic, or home (17, 7, and 2 patients, respectively). Parenteral infusion was started after the last inhaled treatment at maintenance dose (13 patients), after the inhaled therapy was downtitrated to 18 μg (6 patients), or with an overlap of inhaled downtitration with parenteral uptitration (7 patients). The transition was safe; side effects included symptoms of prostacyclin overdose. Patients were followed for 3–18 months. At 3 months, 8 patients improved, 17 maintained their functional class, and 1 continued to deteriorate. In conclusion, selected PAH patients can be safely transitioned from inhaled treprostinil to parenteral treprostinil using a variety of methodologies in different settings with the expectation that patients will improve or at least remain clinically stable.