Rahaghi, Franck

ABSTRACTLung transplantation is indicated for selected patients with advanced pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). We used a modified Delphi process to develop recommendations on care of patients with PAH undergoing lung transplantation. This Delphi panel was recruited from the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute's Innovative Drug Discovery Initiative ‐ Lung Transplantation Workstream, consisting of clinical and research experts in PAH and lung transplantation. In this process, 29 panelists were given open‐ended questions, querying topics related to lung transplantation in PAH. A steering group converted the responses into discrete statements. Panelists then rated agreement using a Likert scale in two further survey rounds: −5 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Consensus was defined as mean ≥ 2.5 or ≤ −2.5, with a standard deviation not crossing zero. Consensus was reached on 141 of 223 statements. Notable areas of consensus were for early discussions about transplantation, and agreement with previously published referral and listing criteria. There was agreement that lung transplantation could be offered in sick candidates, including those with concurrent renal or hepatic insufficiency. Bilateral lung transplantation was considered the procedure of choice for most patients, with rare indications for heart‐lung transplantation. Consensus on bridging strategies included use of veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and preemptive awake cannulation in those with severe right ventricular dysfunction. Consensus was also achieved on intraoperative use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring, and prolonged postoperative circulatory support guided by hemodynamic response and echocardiography. Patients with PAH undergoing transplantation require specialized management, which differs somewhat from other candidates.

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.

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.

The primary aim was to explore the safety and tolerability of inhaled treprostinil when used in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) with concomitant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients with a diagnosis of pre‐capillary PH (defined as pulmonary artery mean pressure of ≥ 25 mmHg and pulmonary artery wedge pressure or left ventricular end diastolic pressure of ≤ 15 mmHg) who were being initiated on inhaled treprostinil and had concomitant COPD (defined as FEV1/FVC ratio ≤ 70% with FEV1 ≥ 40% predicted) were considered for inclusion in this pilot study. Assessments included adverse events, physical exam, World Health Organization (WHO) functional class, 6‐minute walk test (6MWT), modified Borg dyspnea score, and concomitant medication. At baseline and week 16 St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), arterial blood gas (ABG), and pulmonary function test (PFT) were assessed. The median age was 65 years (age range, 56–80 years) and five patients (56%) were men. Among the nine patients, a majority had an increase in 6MWT from baseline to week 16 (median change, 19 m). Only three of the nine patients (33%) had an increase in A‐a gradient at week 16 (median change, –7). There was no difference in any of the following: arterial blood gases, WHO functional class, 6MWT results, or SGRQ scores from baseline to week 16. There was a statistically significant decline in several of the PFT measures, including FEV1 (median change, –0.18 L; P = 0.004; median change, –7% of predicted; P = 0.016), FVC (median change, –0.23 L; P = 0.027), and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (median change, –5% of predicted; P = 0.023). The small number of patients limits firm conclusions; however, inhaled treprostinil did not seem to adversely impact oxygenation in the majority of the study patients with pre‐capillary PH and COPD. While there may have an adverse impact on some pulmonary function parameters, the clinical significance is unclear.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive disease characterized by severe remodeling of the pulmonary artery resulting in increased pulmonary artery pressure and right ventricular hypertrophy and, ultimately, failure. Bone marrow–derived progenitor cells play a critical role in vascular homeostasis and have been shown to be involved in the pathogenesis of PAH. A proliferation of c‐Kit+ hematopoietic progenitors and mast cells has been noted in the remodeled vessels in PAH. Imatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets c‐Kit, has been shown to be beneficial for patients with PAH. Here we hypothesize that the clinical benefit of imatinib in PAH could be related to c‐Kit inhibition of progenitor cell mobilization and maturation into mast cells. As a corollary to the phase 3 study using imatinib in PAH, blood samples were collected from 12 patients prior to starting study drug (baseline) and while on treatment at weeks 4 and 24. Eight were randomized to imatinib and 4 to placebo. Circulating c‐Kit+ and CD34+ CD133+ hematopoietic progenitors as well as biomarkers of mast cell numbers and activation were measured. Circulating CD34+ CD133+ and c‐Kit+ progenitor cells as well as c‐Kit+/CD34+ CD133+ decreased with imatinib therapy (all P < 0.05). In addition, total tryptase, a marker of mast cell load, dropped with imatinib therapy (P = 0.02) and was related to pulmonary vascular resistance (R = 0.7, P = 0.02). The findings support c‐Kit inhibition as a potential mechanism of action of imatinib in PAH and suggest that tryptase is a potential biomarker of response to therapy.