Explore the vast range of titles available.

AV‐101 (imatinib) powder for inhalation, an investigational dry powder inhaled formulation of imatinib designed to target the underlying pathobiology of pulmonary arterial hypertension, was generally well tolerated in healthy adults in a phase 1 single and multiple ascending dose study. Inhaled Imatinib Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Clinical Trial (IMPAHCT; NCT05036135) is a phase 2b/3, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, dose‐ranging, and confirmatory study. IMPAHCT is designed to identify an optimal AV‐101 dose (phase 2b primary endpoint: pulmonary vascular resistance) and assess the efficacy (phase 3 primary endpoint: 6‐min walk distance), safety, and tolerability of AV‐101 dose levels in subjects with pulmonary arterial hypertension using background therapies. The study has an operationally seamless, adaptive design allowing for continuous recruitment. It includes three parts; subjects enrolled in Part 1 (phase 2b dose–response portion) or Part 2 (phase 3 intermediate portion) will be randomized 1:1:1:1 to 10, 35, 70 mg AV‐101, or placebo (twice daily), respectively. Subjects enrolled in Part 3 (phase 3 optimal dose portion) will be randomized 1:1 to the optimal dose of AV‐101 and placebo (twice daily), respectively. All study parts include a screening period, a 24‐week treatment period, and a 30‐day safety follow‐up period; the total duration is ∼32 weeks. Participation is possible in only one study part. IMPAHCT has the potential to advance therapies for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension by assessing the efficacy and safety of a novel investigational drug‐device combination (AV‐101) using an improved study design that has the potential to save 6‐12 months of development time. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05036135.

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.

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.

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.

Oral treprostinil was recently labeled for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Similar to the period immediately after parenteral treprostinil was approved, there is a significant knowledge gap for practicing physicians who might prescribe oral treprostinil. Despite its oral route of delivery, use of the drug is challenging because of the requirement for careful titration and management of drug-related adverse effects. We aimed to create a consensus document combining available evidence with expert opinion to provide guidance for use of oral treprostinil. Following a methodology commonly used in business and social sciences (the ‘Delphi Process’), two investigators from the oral treprostinil (Freedom) studies created a series of statements based on available evidence and the package insert. The set of ‘best practice’ statements was circulated to nine other Freedom trial investigators. Their comments were incorporated into the document as new line items for further vote and comment. The subsequent document was put to vote line by line (scale of −5 to +5) and a final statement was drafted. Consensus recommendations include initial therapy with 0.125 mg for treatment na patients, three times daily dosing, aggressive use of antidiarrheal medication, and a strong preference for use of the drug in combination with other approved PAH therapies. This process was particularly valuable in providing guidance for the management of adverse events (where essentially no data is available). The Delphi process was useful to codify investigator experience and subsequently develop investigator consensus about practical issues for physicians who may wish to prescribe oral treprostinil.

Background The DelIVery for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension clinical trial was a multi-center, prospective, single arm, Investigational Device Exemption study utilizing a fully implantable, programmable intravascular delivery system consisting of a pump and a catheter for intravenous treprostinil. The study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated that the intravascular delivery system significantly reduced catheter related complications at 22,000 subject-days of follow-up compared with a predefined objective performance criterion. Here we summarize the results obtained during a 6.4-year follow-up period. Methods Throughout study follow-up, participants had clinic visits and medication refills at least every 12 weeks (dependent on the subjects’ dose). All adverse events and intravascular delivery system complications were evaluated and recorded. Results Sixty pulmonary arterial hypertension subjects were followed post device implantation for approximately 282 patient-years (range 87 days to 6.4 years). Of the 60 subjects, 14 died (1 related to intravascular delivery system pump failure), 2 withdrew after lung transplants, and 2 withdrew due to pump pocket infection. No catheter-related bloodstream infections, catheter thrombosis or occlusions, or catheter kinks occurred through 282 patient-years. Two participants had adverse events of abdominal pain, rash, due to subcutaneous treprostinil “leaks” after one catheter puncture and one catheter laceration during pump refill and replacement, respectively. Eight pump failure events occurred: seven pump motor stalls and one early replacement (faulty battery). Conclusion Delivery of treprostinil with an intravascular delivery system is a safe alternative to an external delivery system, while providing enhanced life experiences. To preserve the risk–benefit ratio, treatment at specialized pulmonary arterial hypertension centers is recommended until training is disseminated at other sites.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1177/20458940211020913.].

The implanted system for treprostinil has been described in previous publications. There is no information published about how to handle this system around lung or heart–lung transplantation. We present the experience from the DelIVery for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension study. Seven subjects from five pulmonary arterial hypertension centers were included in this retrospective chart review. All subjects were participating in the previously described DelIVery for pulmonary arterial hypertension study. Seven subjects with implanted pumps have been listed for lung or heart–lung transplant. Six subjects underwent lung or heart–lung transplantation and one remains on the transplant list. Three different methods of patient management for transplant were used. In three subjects, the implanted system was filled with saline prior to transplantation and treprostinil was infused via an external system. Three subjects had their drug-filled implanted pump and catheter system explanted at the time of transplant. One patient had the drug-filled implanted system removed prior to being listed for transplantation. Four subjects were hospitalized while waiting for transplantation. In conclusion, the implanted system for treprostinil is an important advance in the care of pulmonary arterial hypertension subjects. The experience described here provides three effective strategies for managing the implanted system around lung or heart–lung transplantation. The optimal strategy will depend on patient characteristics and lung transplant program preferences and wait list times.

This study aims to describe differences in shock reversal between hydrocortisone 200 mg and 300 mg per day dosing regimens in patients with septic shock. This is a multi-center retrospective study including patients admitted to intensive care units with septic shock receiving vasopressors and hydrocortisone between 2013 and 2018. We compared patients who received low dose hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 h) versus high dose hydrocortisone (100 mg every 8 h) on the primary outcome of shock reversal. 319 patients (low dose group, n = 134 and high dose group, n = 185) were included. In the multivariate regression model, high-dose steroids were associated with shock reversal [OR (95% CI) = 2.278 (1.063–4.880), p = 0.034]. This was not confirmed in the propensity score matched analysis [OR (95% CI) =2.202 (0.892–5.437), p = 0.087]. High dose steroids were associated with a lower need for additional vasopressor therapy (22% vs. 34%, p = 0.012) and lower shock recurrence (6.7% vs. 16%, p = 0.013), which was confirmed with propensity score matching. Low and high dose hydrocortisone have similar rates of shock reversal in septic shock patients. Hydrocortisone 100 mg every 8 h may reduce rates of recurrence of shock and reduce the need for additional vasopressors. •There is not a consensus with respect to the optimal hydrocortisone dosing regimen for septic shock patients.•Intravenous hydrocortisone 100 mg every 8 h compared to 50 mg every 6 h in septic shock patients did not result in increased shock reversal.•Hydrocortisone 100 mg every 8 h may be associated with a lower rate of shock recurrence and a decreased need for additional vasopressors after steroid initiation.•These hypothesis generating results should be validated by future prospective studies to delineate the optimal dose of steroids for septic shock.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive disease that causes severe disability and has no cure. Over the past 20 years, a variety of treatment options have evolved for the management of PAH. With an expanded therapeutic armamentarium come more complex decisions regarding treatment options. Agent selection depends upon several factors including efficacy, side effect profile, and cost, as well as convenience of administration. We have undertaken a review of phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors in PAH with a focus on efficacy and safety. A literature search was conducted using the Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases (1966-February 2010) for relevant randomized clinical studies. Overall, 10 studies met our inclusion criteria. Sildenafil was the most commonly studied agent, followed by tadalafil and vardenafil. Most trials found that the PDE-5 inhibitors significantly improved exercise capacity and lowered pulmonary pressures. However, there were conflicting results regarding these agents' impact on improving cardiac function and functional class. Overall, these medications were effective and well tolerated with a relatively benign side effect profile. The PDE-5 inhibitors are an important option in treating PAH. While most of the published clinical data involved sildenafil, the other PDE-5 inhibitors show promise as well. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal doses of this therapeutic drug class, as well as its effects as adjunctive therapy with other agents in PAH.