Balasubramanian, Vijay

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.

Abstract Despite numerous therapeutic advances in pulmonary arterial hypertension, patients continue to suffer high morbidity and mortality, particularly considering a median age of 50 years. This article explores whether early, robust reduction of right ventricular afterload would facilitate substantial improvement in right ventricular function and thus whether afterload reduction should be a treatment goal for pulmonary arterial hypertension. The earliest clinical studies of prostanoid treatment in pulmonary arterial hypertension demonstrated an important link between lowering mean pulmonary arterial pressure (or pulmonary vascular resistance) and improved survival. Subsequent studies of oral monotherapy or sequential combination therapy demonstrated smaller reductions in mean pulmonary arterial pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance. More recently, retrospective reports of initial aggressive prostanoid treatment or initial combination oral and parenteral therapy have shown marked afterload reduction along with significant improvements in right ventricular function. Some data suggest that reaching threshold levels for pressure or resistance (components of right ventricular afterload) may be key to interrupting the self-perpetuating injury of pulmonary vascular disease in pulmonary arterial hypertension and could translate into improved long-term clinical outcomes. Based on these clues, the authors postulate that improved clinical outcomes might be achieved by targeting significant afterload reduction with initial oral combination therapy and early parenteral prostanoids.

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.