Safety of macitentan for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension: Real‐world experience from the OPsumit® USers Registry (OPUS) and OPsumit® Historical USers cohort (OrPHeUS)

Macitentan in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Associated with Connective Tissue Disease (CTD-PAH): Real-World Evidence from the Combined OPUS/OrPHeUS Dataset

INTRODUCTION

Data on real-world clinical practice and outcomes of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with connective tissue disease (CTD-PAH) are scarce. The OPUS/OrPHeUS studies enrolled patients newly initiating macitentan, including those with CTD-PAH. This analysis describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, outcomes, and safety profiles of patients with CTD-PAH newly initiating macitentan in the US using the OPUS/OrPHeUS combined dataset.

METHODS

OPUS was a prospective, US, multicenter, long-term, observational drug registry (April 2014-June 2020). OrPHeUS was a retrospective, US, multicenter medical chart review (October 2013-March 2017). The characteristics, treatment patterns, safety, and outcomes during macitentan treatment of patients with CTD-PAH and its subgroups systemic sclerosis (SSc-PAH), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE-PAH), and mixed CTD (MCTD-PAH) were descriptively compared to patients with idiopathic/heritable PAH (I/HPAH).

RESULTS

The combined OPUS/OrPHeUS population included 2498 patients with I/HPAH and 1192 patients with CTD-PAH (708 SSc-PAH; 159 SLE-PAH; 124 MCTD-PAH, and 201 other CTD-PAH etiologies). At macitentan initiation for patients with I/HPAH and CTD-PAH, respectively: 61.2 and 69.3% were in World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC) III/IV; median 6-min walk distance was 289 and 279 m; and 58.1 and 65.2% received macitentan as combination therapy. During follow-up, for patients with I/HPAH and CTD-PAH, respectively: median duration of macitentan exposure observed was 14.0 and 15.8 months; 79.0 and 83.0% experienced an adverse event; Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% confidence limits [CL]) of patients free from all-cause hospitalization at 1 year were 60.3% (58.1, 62.4) and 59.3% (56.1, 62.3); and Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% CL) of survival at 1 year were 90.5% (89.1, 91.7) and 90.6% (88.6, 92.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Macitentan was used in clinical practice in patients with CTD-PAH and its subgroups, including as combination therapy. The safety and tolerability profile of macitentan in patients with CTD-PAH was comparable to that of patients with I/HPAH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OPsumit® Users Registry (OPUS): NCT02126943; Opsumit® Historical Users cohort (OrPHeUS): NCT03197688; www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Graphical abstract available for this article.

Safety of Macitentan for the Treatment of Portopulmonary Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from the Combined OPUS/OrPHeUS Studies

INTRODUCTION

Portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH) carries a worse prognosis than other forms of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Data regarding use of PAH-specific therapies in patients with PoPH are sparse as they are usually excluded from clinical trials. This analysis describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, outcomes, and safety profiles in patients with PoPH newly initiating macitentan in the USA using the OPUS/OrPHeUS combined dataset.

METHODS

OPUS was a prospective, US, multicenter, observational drug registry (April 2014-June 2020); OrPHeUS was a retrospective, US, multicenter chart review (October 2013-March 2017). Additional information regarding patients' liver disease was retrospectively collected for patients with PoPH in OPUS.

RESULTS

The OPUS/OrPHeUS dataset included 206 patients with PoPH (median age 58 years; 52.4% female), with baseline cirrhosis and liver test abnormalities reported in 72.8% and 31.6% of patients respectively. Macitentan was initiated as combination therapy in 74.8% of patients and median (Q1, Q3) exposure to macitentan was 11.9 (3.1, 26.0) months. One-year Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% confidence limit, CL) of patients free from all-cause hospitalization and survival were 48.6% (40.7, 56.0) and 82.2% (75.1, 87.4). Of the 96 patients with PoPH in OPUS, 29.2% were classified as in need of liver transplant due to underlying liver disease during the study; transplant waitlist registration was precluded because of PAH severity for 32.1% and 17.9% were transplanted. Hepatic adverse events (HAE) were experienced by 49.0% of patients; the most common being increased bilirubin (16.0%), ascites (7.3%), and hepatic encephalopathy (5.8%); 1.5% and 21.8% of patients discontinued macitentan as a result of HAE and non-hepatic adverse events.

CONCLUSION

There were no unexpected safety findings in patients with PoPH treated with macitentan. These data add to the evidence supporting the safety and tolerability of macitentan in patients with PoPH. A graphical abstract is available with this article.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OPsumit® Users Registry (OPUS): NCT02126943; OPsumit® Historical Users cohort (OrPHeUS): NCT03197688; www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov .

Real-World Management of Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Insights from EXPOSURE

INTRODUCTION

Further insights into real-world management and outcomes of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) are needed. This interim analysis of the ongoing, multicentre, prospective EXPOSURE (EUPAS19085) observational study describes characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with PAH initiating a new PAH-specific therapy in Europe/Canada.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All analyses were descriptive. In total, 1944 patients with follow-up information were included; the majority were female, with World Health Organization functional class II/III symptoms and with idiopathic PAH or connective tissue disease-associated PAH. Most incident patients (N = 1100; diagnosed for ≤ 6 months) initiated treatment as monotherapy (48%) or double therapy (43%). Of those initiating monotherapy, 38% (199/530) escalated to double therapy (median [Q1, Q3] time to escalation 3.4 [1.9, 6.6] months), and of those initiating double therapy, 17% (78/457) escalated to triple therapy (median [Q1, Q3] time to escalation 7.0 [3.4, 12.7] months) during the observation period (median [Q1, Q3]: 17.0 [7.5, 29.9] months). The majority of the 834 prevalent patients (diagnosed > 6 months) entered the study on initiation of combination therapy and most did not change treatment regimen during the observation period (median [Q1, Q3]: 19.6 [10.2, 32.2] months). One-year survival was 88% for incident patients and 90% for prevalent patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from EXPOSURE suggest a shift towards combination therapy and the alignment of real-world treatment patterns with current guideline recommendations. While survival estimates are encouraging, the extent of monotherapy use at treatment initiation and follow-up highlight an opportunity for further improvements through optimisation of treatment strategies in line with current guidelines. A graphical abstract is also available with this article.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EUPAS19085.

Liver injury due to endothelin receptor antagonists: a real-world study based on post-marketing drug monitoring data

BACKGROUND

Liver injury is the hallmark adverse reaction of endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA). Since the first drug, bosentan has been widely used in clinical practice, hepatotoxicity has been accompanied by the history of ERA. The new ERA has been proven to have a lower liver risk but the current research findings are inconsistent. ERA-based targeted drug combinations are commonly used in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension, where the risk of liver injury is difficult to estimate.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the correlation between ERA and different ERA combination regimens with liver injury in the real world.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study using data from the Adverse Event Reporting System (Food and Drug Administration AERS, FAERS).

METHODS

The study used proportional imbalance and Bayesian analysis to mine FAERS data from January 2004 to December 2022 to determine the association of three ERAs with liver injury and to further mine the risk of liver injury due to the combination of ERAs with other targeted drugs. In addition, we analyzed the onset time, mortality, and hospitalization rate of liver injury caused by different ERA combination regimens.

RESULTS

We screened out 3581 ERA-related liver injury events, of which bosentan (59.82%) had the largest number of cases. The patients with liver injury were mainly female (60.63%), and the age was concentrated between 61 and 75 years (26.75%). According to different signal mining methods, reporting odds ratio (ROR; 3.38, 95% confidence interval = 3.23-3.53), proportional reporting ratio (PRR; 3.22, χ2 = 37.84), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN; 1.68, 95% confidence interval = 1.61), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS; 3.21, 95% confidence interval = 3.09), bosentan had the strongest association with liver injury compared to ambrisentan and macitentan. Furthermore, bosentan + sildenafil [ROR (2.52, 95% confidence interval = 2.23-2.84), PRR (2.44, χ2 = 15.92), BCPNN (1.29, 95% confidence interval = 1.14), MGPS (2.44, 95% confidence interval = 2.21)], bosentan + epoprostenol [ROR (5.39, 95% confidence interval = 4.29-6.77), PRR (4.94, χ2 = 65.18), BCPNN (2.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.83), MGPS (4.94, 95% confidence interval = 4.08)], bosentan + iloprost [ROR (2.70, 95% confidence interval = 2.11-3.45), PRR (2.61, χ2 = 31.03), BCPNN (1.38, 95% confidence interval = 1.08), MGPS (2.61, 95% confidence interval = 2.12)] had a higher risk of liver injury caused by the three ERA combination regimens. The median time to onset of hepatotoxicity associated with all ERA combination regimens was 259 days (interquartile range: 58-716.5 days). Finally, the hospitalization rate for patients experiencing hepatotoxicity with ERA combination regimens was 47.86% and the mortality rate was 12.67%.

CONCLUSION

By mining the FAERS, we analyzed and compared the risk of liver injury related to different ERA and ERA combination regimens, and the onset time and adverse reaction outcomes of all ERA combination regimens. According to the results of the study, bosentan had the highest risk of liver injury and the combination regimens bosentan + sildenafil, bosentan + epoprostenol, and bosentan + iloprost had a stronger risk of liver injury. From the early stages of treatment, we need to regularly monitor the liver function of patients, especially for females and the elderly, and discontinue the suspected drug as soon as the liver injury occurs.

Pharmacological management of connective tissue disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a severe, progressive pulmonary vasculopathy (Group 1 Pulmonary Hypertension (PH)) that complicates the course of many connective tissue diseases (CTD). Detailed testing is required to differentiate PAH from other types of PH caused by CTD such as left heart disease (Group 2 PH), pulmonary parenchymal disease (Group 3 PH), and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (Group 4 PH). PAH is most frequently seen in systemic sclerosis but can also be seen with systemic lupus erythematosus, mixed CTD, and primary Sjogren's syndrome.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the epidemiology of CTD-associated PAH, outlines the complex diagnosis approach, and finishes with an in-depth discussion on the current treatment paradigm. Focus is placed on challenges faced in the treatment of CTD-associated PAH, (decreased efficacy and poorer tolerance of pharmacological therapies) and includes a discussion on the future investigational treatments.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite significant advances over the past decades with more aggressive treatment algorithms, CTD-associated PAH patients continue to have poorer survival compared to those with idiopathic PAH. This review highlights factors leading to disparate outcomes compared to other forms of PAH, and discusses on further improvements that may increase quality of life and survival for CTD-associated PAH patients.