Eggert, Michael

Background Current mortality data for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in the United States are based on registries that enrolled patients prior to 2010. We sought to determine mortality in PAH in the modern era using the PHAR (Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry). Methods and Results We identified all adult patients with PAH enrolled in the PHAR between September 2015 and September 2020 (N=935). We used Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models to assess mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years. Patients were stratified based on disease severity by 3 validated risk scores. In treatment‐naïve patients, we compared survival based on initial treatment strategy. The median age was 56 years (44–68 years), and 76% were women. Of the 935 patients, 483 (52%) were ≤6 months from PAH diagnosis. There were 121 deaths (12.9%) during a median follow‐up time of 489 days (281–812 days). The 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐year mortality was 8% (95% CI, 6%–10%), 16% (95% CI, 13%–19%), and 21% (95% CI, 17%–25%), respectively. When stratified into low‐, intermediate‐, and high‐risk PAH, the mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years was 1%, 4% to 6%, and 7% to 11% for low risk; 7% to 8%, 11% to 16%, and 18% to 20% for intermediate risk; and 12% to 19%, 22% to 38%, and 28% to 55% for high risk, respectively. In treatment‐naïve patients, initial combination therapy was associated with better 1‐year survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.19–0.95]; P =0.037). Conclusions Mortality in the intermediate‐ and high‐risk patients with PAH remains unacceptably high in the PHAR, suggesting the importance for early diagnosis, aggressive use of available therapies, and the need for better therapeutics.

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.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a rare, morbid, potentially curable subtype of pulmonary hypertension that negatively impacts health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Little is known about differences in HRQoL and hospitalization between CTEPH patients and idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) patients. Using multivariable linear regression and mixed effects models, we examined differences in HRQoL assessed by emPHasis‐10 (E10) and SF‐12 between CTEPH and IPAH patients in the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry, a prospective multicenter cohort of patients newly evaluated at a Pulmonary Hypertension Care Center. Multivariable negative binomial regression models were used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) for hospitalization amongst the two groups. We included 461 IPAH patients and 169 CTEPH patients. Twenty‐one percent of CTEPH patients underwent pulmonary thromboendarterectomy (PTE) before the end of follow‐up. At baseline, patients with CTEPH had significantly worse HRQoL (higher E10 scores) (ß 2.83, SE 1.11, p = 0.01); however, differences did not persist over time. CTEPH patients had higher rates of hospitalization (excluding the hospitalization for PTE) compared to IPAH patients after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, WHO functional class and six‐minute walk distance (IRR 1.66, 95%CI 1.04–2.65, p = 0.03). CTEPH patients who underwent PTE had improved HRQoL as compared to those who were medically managed, but patients who underwent PTE were younger, had higher cardiac outputs and greater six‐minute walk distances. In this large, prospective, multicenter cohort, CTEPH patients had significantly worse baseline HRQoL and higher rates of hospitalizations than those with IPAH. CTEPH patients who underwent PTE had significant improvements in HRQoL.

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.