Recommendations for the use of oral treprostinil in clinical practice: a Delphi consensus project pulmonary circulation

Comparative effectiveness of oral therapies targeting the prostacyclin pathway in pulmonary arterial hypertension: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral prostanoids are recommended in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and an unsatisfactory response to first-line therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of oral therapies targeting the prostacyclin pathway in PAH patients.

METHODS

An online search of Medline, Cochrane Registry, Scopus and EMBASE libraries (from inception to May, 12,020) was conducted. Eight randomized controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis involving 3023 patients, with 828 receiving oral treprostinil, 607 patients receiving selexipag, 125 patients receiving beraprost, and 1463 patients receiving placebo.

RESULTS

Compared to placebo, oral treprostinil (WMD 9.05, 95% CI 3.0280-15.0839, p = 0.0032) and beraprost (WMD 21.98, 95% CI 5.0536-38.9063, p = 0.0109) were associated with a significant increase in 6-min walking distance (6MWD) at follow-up from baseline, whereas selexipag use was associated with a non-significant increase in 6MWD (WMD 15.41, 95% CI -0.6074; 31.4232, p = 0.0593). Compared to placebo, the risk of clinical worsening was significantly lowered by selexipag (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.65, p < 0.001) and oral treprostinil (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.90, p 0.012), whereas a non-significant reduction of the outcome was related to beraprost use (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.36-1.38, p 0.31). No significant difference in 6MWD change and clinical worsening reduction were found among oral treprostinil and selexipag. Beraprost use less frequently caused adverse events as compared to selexipag and oral treprostinil.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in 6MWD change, clinical worsening reduction and adverse events rates were found among oral treprostinil and selexipag, resulting in similar efficacy and safety profiles.

Comparative effectiveness of oral therapies targeting the prostacyclin pathway in pulmonary arterial hypertension: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral prostanoids are recommended in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and a unsatisfactory response to first-line therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare effectiveness of oral therapies targeting the prostacyclin pathway in PAH patients.

METHODS

An online search of Medline, Cochrane Registry, Scopus and EMBASE libraries (from inception to May, 12020) was performed. Eight randomized controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis involving 3023 patients, of whom 828 receiving oral treprostinil, 607 patients receiving selexipag, 125 patients receiving beraprost, and 1463 patients received placebo.

RESULTS

As compared to placebo, oral treprostinil (WMD 9.05, 95% CI 3.0280-15.0839, p = 0.0032) and beraprost (WMD 21.98, 95% CI 5.0536-38.9063, p = 0.0109) arms significantly increased 6 min walking distance (6MWD) at follow-up from baseline, whereas selexipag use was associated with a non-significant increase in 6MWD (WMD 15.41, 95% CI -0.6074; 31.4232, p = 0.0593). Compared to placebo, the risk of clinical worsening was significantly lowered by selexipag (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.65, p < 0.001) and oral treprostinil (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.90, p 0.012), whereas a non-significant reduction of the outcome was related to beraprost use (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.36-1.38, p 0.31). No significant difference in 6MWD change and clinical worsening reduction were found among oral treprostinil and selexipag. Beraprost use less frequently caused adverse events as compared to selexipag and oral treprostinil.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in 6MWD change, clinical worsening reduction and adverse events rates were found among oral treprostinil and selexipag, resulting in similar efficacy and safety profile.

Expert consensus on improving iron deficiency anemia management in obstetrics and gynecology in Asia

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a major health burden among women in Asia. Key issues in IDA management in Asia are under-diagnosis and under-treatment. The lack of Asia-specific guidelines, and suboptimal utilization of treatment compounds the management of IDA. To address these gaps, a panel of 12 experts in obstetrics, gynecology, and hematology from six regions in Asia convened to review current practices and clinical evidence and provide practical guidance on IDA diagnosis and management in Asian women. The Delphi approach was used to obtain objective opinions and attain consensus on statements pertaining to awareness, diagnosis, and management of IDA. In total, 79 statements attained consensus and are summarized to provide guidance on raising awareness of IDA and approaches for improved diagnosis and treatment of IDA among women in various settings: pregnancy, postpartum, heavy menstrual bleeding, gynecologic cancers, and perioperative care. This clinician-led consensus integrates appropriate recommendations based on clinical evidence and best practices and is intended to guide decision making in the management of iron deficiency/IDA in women. The expert panel raises a call for timely diagnosis and utilization of appropriate treatment, including use of high-dose intravenous iron, stringent blood management, and interdisciplinary collaboration, for optimization of IDA management among women in Asia.

Implementing the EXPEDITE parenteral induction protocol: Rapid parenteral treprostinil titration and transition to oral treprostinil

Treprostinil is a prostacyclin analogue that targets multiple cellular receptors to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). In certain scenarios, patients may require aggressive treprostinil titration. Several studies have demonstrated that higher doses of treprostinil lead to greater clinical benefit. Data supports successful transitions from parenteral to oral treprostinil; however, administration routes, transition duration, and transition setting vary in the real-world. The EXPEDITE clinical trial (NCT03497689) prospectively studied whether rapid parenteral treprostinil induction can be used to achieve high doses of oral treprostinil (total daily dose: ≥12 mg) in prostacyclin naïve PAH patients. Parenteral prostacyclin induction may be more appropriate for patients who need to reach therapeutic dosing more urgently than longer titration durations reported with conventional de novo oral treprostinil initiation. This summary provides strategies utilized in EXPEDITE. Parenteral treprostinil was initiated at 2 ng/kg/min intravenously or subcutaneously; clinicians determined the frequency and dose increment of up-titration. Two distinct transition schedules from parenteral to oral treprostinil were employed: rapid cross-titration in an inpatient setting (median: 2 days) or gradual cross-titration in an outpatient setting (median: 5 days). Patient status was closely monitored after transition; oral treprostinil dose was titrated to clinical effect and tolerability. Factors considered when individualizing dosing strategies included parenteral and oral treprostinil target doses, nursing support, patient education, medication counseling and adverse events management. EXPEDITE demonstrated the time to a therapeutic dose of oral treprostinil is significantly shorter when utilizing a short-term parenteral induction strategy and may be suitable for patients requiring aggressive titration of oral treprostinil.

The heart of the matter: Right heart imaging indicators for treatment escalation in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Right heart (RH) structure and function are major determinants of symptoms and prognosis in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). RH imaging provides detailed information, but evidence and guidelines on the use of RH imaging in treatment decisions are limited. We conducted a Delphi study to gather expert opinion on the role of RH imaging in decision-making for treatment escalation in PAH. A panel of 17 physicians with expertise in PAH and RH imaging used three surveys in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the role of RH imaging in PAH. Survey 1 used open-ended questions to gather information. Survey 2 contained Likert scale and other questions intended to identify consensus on topics identified in Survey 1. Survey 3 contained Likert scale questions derived from Survey 2 and summary information on the results of Survey 2. The Delphi panel reached consensus that RH imaging is likely to improve the current risk stratification algorithms and help differentiate risk levels in patients at intermediate risk. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, right ventricular fractional area change, right atrial area, tricuspid regurgitation, inferior venae cavae diameter, and pericardial effusion should be part of routine echocardiography in PAH. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is valuable but limited by cost and access. A pattern of abnormal RH imaging results should prompt consideration of hemodynamic evaluation and possible treatment escalation. RH imaging is an important tool for decisions about treatment escalation in PAH, but systematically collected evidence is needed to clarify its role.

Screening Strategies for Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease: A Multidisciplinary Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a common complication of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and is associated with worse outcomes and increased mortality. Evaluation of PH is recommended in lung transplant candidates, but there are currently no standardized screening approaches. Trials have identified therapies that are effective in this setting, providing another rationale to routinely screen patients with ILD for PH.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What screening strategies for identifying PH in patients with ILD are supported by expert consensus?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The study convened a panel of 16 pulmonologists with expertise in PH and ILD, and used a modified Delphi consensus process with three surveys to identify PH screening strategies. Survey 1 consisted primarily of open-ended questions. Surveys 2 and 3 were developed from responses to survey 1 and contained statements about PH screening that panelists rated from -5 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

RESULTS

Panelists reached consensus on several triggers for suspicion of PH including the following: symptoms, clinical signs, findings on chest CT scan or other imaging, abnormalities in pulse oximetry, elevations in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and unexplained worsening in pulmonary function tests or 6-min walk distance. Echocardiography and BNP/NT-proBNP were identified as screening tools for PH. Right heart catheterization was deemed essential for confirming PH.

INTERPRETATION

Many patients with ILD may benefit from early evaluation of PH now that an approved therapy is available. Protocols to evaluate patients with ILD often overlap with evaluations for pulmonary hypertension-interstitial lung disease and can be used to assess the risk of PH. Because standardized approaches are lacking, this consensus statement is intended to aid physicians in the identification of patients with ILD and possible PH, and provide guidance for timely right heart catheterization.

Delphi Consensus Recommendation for Optimization of Pulmonary Hypertension Therapy Focusing On Switching from a Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitor to Riociguat

Dual 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.

Management of repository corticotropin injection therapy for non-infectious uveitis: a Delphi study

PURPOSE

Diagnosis and management of non-infectious uveitis (NIU), a major cause of blindness worldwide, are challenging. Corticosteroids, the cornerstone of therapy, are not appropriate for long-term use, and while non-biologic and biologic immunomodulators may be used for some patients, data on their efficacy and safety in this population are limited. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI), believed to affect uveitis by multiple mechanisms, has received regulatory approval for treatment of ophthalmic diseases including posterior uveitis, but is not widely used or discussed in guidelines for the management of uveitis and ocular inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

The index study employed a modified Delphi process with a panel of 14 US-based ophthalmologists. Consensus recommendations were developed through a series of three questionnaires. Panellists rated statements on a Likert scale from -5 (strongly disagree) to +5 (strongly agree).

RESULTS

The Delphi panel provided consensus recommendations on examinations and testing needed for diagnosis, treatment goals, and the use of corticosteroids, as well as the use of non-biologic and biologic immunomodulators. The panel reached consensus that RCI may be considered for posterior and pan-uveitis, and dosing should be individualized for each patient. Dose reduction/discontinuation should be considered for excessive RCI-related toxicity, hyperglycaemia and/or diabetic complications, excessive costs, or remission ≥ 2 years. Patients should be weaned from RCI if uveitis is stable and well controlled. Adverse events during RCI therapy can be managed by appropriate interventions, with dose reduction/discontinuation considered if events are severe or recurrent.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert consensus suggests RCI may be an appropriate treatment option for some patients with uveitis when other therapies are ineffective or intolerable.

Transition from IV epoprostenol to oral treprostinil in a patient with group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension

PURPOSE

Epoprostenol and treprostinil are prostacyclins indicated for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Although there is literature describing the conversion of intravenous (IV) epoprostenol to IV treprostinil or IV treprostinil to oral treprostinil, there is little data on the direct conversion of IV epoprostenol to oral treprostinil. In this case, we describe the direct conversion of IV epoprostenol to oral treprostinil without an intermediary conversion to IV treprostinil.

SUMMARY

A 39 year-old female with PAH was admitted for altered mental status and self-removal of her peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) used for IV epoprostenol. Given the unplanned hospitalization, absence of a dedicated central line for IV prostacyclin therapy, and concern the patient may remove a future subcutaneous line, the patient was transitioned to oral treprostinil. Of note, despite triple PAH therapy, the patient was unable to reach a low risk group based on her prognostic risk assessment. A right heart catheterization four months prior found severe PAH with a pulmonary arterial pressure of 79/32 mmHg (mean, 49 mmHg) and pulmonary vascular resistance of 10.6 Wood units. To expedite the transition, the patient was directly converted from IV epoprostenol to oral treprostinil without an intermediary conversion to IV treprostinil. A target oral treprostinil dose of 5 mg TID was calculated based on 110% of the IV epoprostenol dose (19 ng/kg/min) utilizing the conversion recommended by the medication manufacturer. Every 8 hours, IV epoprostenol was decreased by 2 ng/kg/min and oral treprostinil was increased by 0.5 mg. The target oral treprostinil dose of 5 mg TID was reached 72 hours after conversion initiation. Three hours after the final titration, the patient was discharged home on room air.

CONCLUSION

In this case, rapid transition from IV epoprostenol to oral treprostinil was achieved in 72 hours without reported adverse effects.

Opportunities and challenges of pharmacotherapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension in children

Pediatric pulmonary hypertension (PAH) is a rare disease that carries a poor prognosis if left untreated. Although there are published guidelines for the treatment of children with pulmonary hypertension, due to the limited number of robust pediatric clinical trials, recommendations are often based on limited data or clinical experience. Furthermore, many practical aspects of care, particularly for the pediatric patient, are learned through experience and best navigated with a multidisciplinary team. While newer PAH therapies have been approved for adults, there is still limited but expanding experience in pediatrics. This new information will help improve the targets of goal-oriented therapy. Lastly, this review highlights practical aspects in the use of the different therapies available for the treatment of pediatric pulmonary hypertension.

An expert panel delphi consensus statement on patient selection and management for transitioning between oral and inhaled treprostinil

Treprostinil, a prostacyclin analogue used in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), is available for administration by parenteral, oral, or inhaled routes. Transitioning between routes may be beneficial for appropriate patients; however, there is little published data on transitions between oral and inhaled treprostinil. We used a modified Delphi process to develop expert consensus recommendations on transitions between these formulations. Three questionnaires were used to develop statements about relevant aspects of transition management, which the panelists rated, using a Likert scale, from -5 (strongly disagree) to +5 (strongly agree). Eleven physicians with expertise in PAH treatment modalities, participated in the panel. Of the 492 statements evaluated, consensus was reached on 215 (43.7%). Key consensus recommendations included (1) accurately defining successful transition, as stable or improved PAH with good tolerability and adherence, and (2) patients with stable, low-risk PAH showing insufficient response or tolerability to their existing treprostinil therapy (and due to restrictions in up titration of dosing), as appropriate candidates for transitions between treprostinil formulations. Panelists did not reach consensus for an overall strategy for performing these transitions, mainly because of variability in their practice parameters. Consensus was also achieved on recommendations for adverse event management, including reassurance, administration of oral treprostinil 3 times daily with food, and dosing inhaled treprostinil at intervals ≥3 hours apart. The Delphi process aided in developing expert consensus recommendations that may provide clinically useful guidance for transitioning between treprostinil formulations. However, additional data from centers with high volumes of PAH patients undergoing treprostinil transitions would be optimal for defining more complete and robust strategies to facilitate successful transition.

Comparative effectiveness of oral prostacyclin pathway drugs on hospitalization in patients with pulmonary hypertension in the United States: a retrospective database analysis

Two oral medications targeting the prostacyclin pathway are available to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension in the United States: oral treprostinil and selexipag. We compared real-world hospitalization in patients receiving these medications. A retrospective administrative claims study was conducted using the Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart database. Patients with pulmonary hypertension were identified using diagnostic codes. Cohort inclusion required age ≥ 18 years, first oral treprostinil or selexipag prescription between 1 January 2015 and 30 September 2017 (index date), and continuous enrollment in the prior ≥6 months. Patients who switched index drug were excluded. Follow-up was from index date until the first of end of index drug exposure, end of continuous enrollment, death, or 31 December 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and Poisson regression were used to compare risk and rate, respectively, of hospitalization associated with oral treprostinil vs. selexipag, adjusting for potential confounders. The study cohort included 99 patients receiving oral treprostinil and 123 receiving selexipag. Mean age was 61 years, and most patients were females (71%). Compared with oral treprostinil, selexipag was associated with a 46% lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 0.92; P = 0.02), a 47% lower risk of pulmonary hypertension-related hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 0.93; P = 0.03), a 42% lower all-cause hospitalization rate (rate ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.39, 0.87; P = 0.01), and a 46% lower pulmonary hypertension-related hospitalization rate (rate ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.35, 0.82; P = 0.004). This study suggests that selexipag is associated with lower hospitalization risk and rate than oral treprostinil.

Management of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

Purpose of Review

This review focuses on the therapeutic management and individualized approach to Group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), utilizing Food and Drug Administration-approved PAH-specific therapies and various interventional and surgical options for PAH.

Recent Findings

The paradigm for the optimal management of PAH has shifted in recent years. Upfront combination therapy with an endothelin receptor antagonist and a phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor is now widely accepted as standard of care. In addition, there is increasing emphasis on starting prostanoids early in order to delay time to clinical worsening. However, less is known regarding which prostanoid agent to initiate and the optimum time to do so. In order to facilitate shared decision-making, there is an increasing need for decision tools based on guidelines and collective clinical experiences to navigate between pharmacologic and interventional treatments, as well as explore innovative, therapeutic pathways for PAH.

Summary

The management of PAH has become increasingly complex. With a growing number of PAH-specific therapies, intimate knowledge of the therapeutics and the potential barriers to adherence are integral to providing optimal care for this high-risk patient population. While current PAH-specific therapies largely mediate their effects through pulmonary vasodilation, ongoing research efforts are focused on ways to disrupt the mechanisms leading to pulmonary vascular remodeling. By targeting aberrations identified in the metabolism and proliferative state of pulmonary vascular cells, novel PAH treatment pathways may be just on the horizon.

Expert consensus on the management of adverse events and prescribing practices associated with the treatment of patients taking pirfenidone for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a Delphi consensus study

Background

In patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) treated with pirfenidone (Esbriet®, Genentech USA, Inc. South San Francisco, CA.), effectively managing treatment-related adverse events (AEs) may improve adherence. Due to a lack of clinical evidence and expertise, managing these AEs can be challenging for patients and physicians alike. In the absence of evidence, consensus recommendations from physicians experienced in using pirfenidone to treat IPF are beneficial.

Methods

Using a modified Delphi process, expert recommendations were developed by a panel of physicians experienced with using pirfenidone for IPF. Over three iterations, panelists developed and refined a series of statements on the use of pirfenidone in IPF. Their agreement on each statement was ranked using a Likert scale.

Results

A panel of 12 physicians participated and developed a total of 286 statements on dosing and administration, special populations, drug-drug interactions, laboratory analysis, warnings and precautions, and AE management. Expert recommendations were achieved with regard to slower initial titrations and slower titrations for AEs, dosing with meal(s) or substantial meals, and adding other prescribed pharmacological agents for AEs.

Conclusion

Until there is further clinical evidence, the resulting consensus recommendations are intended to provide direction on the practical management of IPF with pirfenidone, by encompassing a broad experience from the real world to complement data gleaned from clinical trials.

Pharmacokinetics of Oral Treprostinil in Children With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

As part of a clinical trial, this study examined the pharmacokinetics (PK) of oral treprostinil (TRE) in children with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The trial consisted of the following 3 cohorts: transition from parenteral (cohort 1) or inhaled (cohort 2) TRE, or de novo addition (cohort 3). Oral TRE was dosed 3 times daily. PK samples were obtained before an oral TRE dose, and at 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours thereafter. The PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental analysis. Thirty-two children (n = 10 in cohorts 1 and 2, n = 12 in cohort 3) were enrolled; the median age was 12 years (range 7-17 years), and the median weight was 42.2 kg (range 19.3-78 kg). The median oral TRE dose for all subjects was 3.8 mg (5.9, 3.5, and 4.0 mg for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The TRE concentration versus time profile demonstrated a peak concentration at a median of 3.8 hours with wide variability. In cohort 1, oral dosing led to higher peak (5.9 ng/mL) and lower trough (1 ng/mL) concentrations than parenteral (peak 5.4 ng/mL and trough 4.2 ng/mL), but a lower mean concentration (3.61 vs. 4.46 ng/mL), likely due to variable metabolism and noncomparable dosing. Both the area under the curve and average concentration were linearly correlated with oral TRE dose and dose normalized to body weight, but not with weight or age alone. In pediatric patients, an increased oral TRE dose or dose frequency may be required to minimize PK variability and achieve greater correlation with parenteral dosing.

Transition from selexipag to oral treprostinil in a patient with pulmonary arterial hypertension

Prostacyclins are the mainstay treatment for patients with severe pulmonary arterial hypertension. This case highlights the transition from selexipag to oral treprostinil. Our patient improved both subjectively and objectively. Cardiac output and index, as measured by the echocardiogram, improved 12% and 7.7%, respectively. Invasive hemodynamic data revealed greater improvements: cardiac output improved by 25% and cardiac index by 28%. Mixed venous oxygen saturation improved from 65% to 71%. A possible explanation is that selexipag has a maximal dose, whereas there is no recommended maximum dose of oral treprostinil. Another theory is oral treprostinil has higher affinity to the IP receptor, though selexipag has a higher specificity. However, there are no bio-equivalency data, and data comparing pharmacodynamics of both drugs are lacking. Furthermore, no head-to-head trials comparing these agents exist.

Management of repository corticotrophin injection therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis: a Delphi study

In patients treated with repository corticotrophin injection (RCI) for pulmonary sarcoidosis, effective management of adverse events may improve adherence. However, management of adverse events may be challenging due to limitations in real-world clinical experience with RCI and available published guidelines.

We surveyed 12 physicians with a modified Delphi process using three questionnaires. Questionnaire 1 consisted of open-ended questions. Panellists' answers were developed into a series of statements for Questionnaires 2 and 3. In these, physicians rated their agreement with the statements using a Likert scale.

Key consensus recommendations included a starting dose of 40 units twice a week for patients with less severe disease, continued at a maintenance dose for patients who responded, particularly those with chronic refractory sarcoidosis. Panellists reached consensus that concomitant steroids should be quickly tapered in patients receiving RCI, but that concomitant use of immunosuppressive medications should be continued. Panellists developed consensus recommendations for adverse event management, and reached consensus that RCI should be down-titrated or discontinued if other interventions for the adverse effects fail or if the adverse effect is severe.

In the absence of clinical evidence, our Delphi consensus opinions may provide practical guidance to physicians on the management of RCI to treat pulmonary sarcoidosis.

In this paper, a modified Delphi method was used to develop an expert consensus on the use of repository corticotrophin injection therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis, including dosing, concomitant medications, contraindications and adverse event management.http://bit.ly/2TyauZp

Delphi consensus recommendations for a treatment algorithm in pulmonary sarcoidosis

Pulmonary sarcoidosis presents substantial management challenges, with limited evidence on effective therapies and phenotypes. In the absence of definitive evidence, expert consensus can supply clinically useful guidance in medicine. An international panel of 26 experts participated in a Delphi process to identify consensus on pharmacological management in sarcoidosis with the development of preliminary recommendations.

The modified Delphi process used three rounds. The first round focused on qualitative data collection with open-ended questions to ensure comprehensive inclusion of expert concepts. Rounds 2 and 3 applied quantitative assessments using an 11-point Likert scale to identify consensus.

Key consensus points included glucocorticoids as initial therapy for most patients, with non-biologics (immunomodulators), usually methotrexate, considered in severe or extrapulmonary disease requiring prolonged treatment, or as a steroid-sparing intervention in cases with high risk of steroid toxicity. Biologic therapies might be considered as additive therapy if non-biologics are insufficiently effective or are not tolerated with initial biologic therapy, usually with a tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor, typically infliximab.

The Delphi methodology provided a platform to gain potentially valuable insight and interim guidance while awaiting evidenced-based contributions.

Expert consensus recommendations for a pulmonary sarcoidosis treatment algorithm from a modified Delphi process include corticosteroids as initial therapy, immunomodulators for steroid-sparing or severe disease, and biologics for very severe diseasehttp://bit.ly/2SmP3uG

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: a Pharmacotherapeutic Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) leads to progressive increases in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), right heart failure, and death if left untreated. This review will summarize and discuss recent updates in the classification and management of patients with PAH.

RECENT FINDINGS

PAH requires careful hemodynamic assessment and is defined by a mean pulmonary artery pressure > 20 mmHg with normal left-sided filling pressures and a PVR ≥ 3 Wood units. Most patients with PAH require targeted pharmacotherapy based on multiparametric risk stratification. Significant improvements in clinical outcome have been realized through the approval of 14 unique pharmacotherapeutic options. The latest clinical recommendations provide the updated hemodynamic definition and clinical classification as well as evidence-based treatment recommendations. An important change is the focus on initial upfront combination therapy for most patients with PAH. Structured follow-up and escalation of treatment for those not achieving low-risk status is paramount.

Combination Therapy in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Gleaning a Practical Approach from the Randomized Trials

In the past decade, combination therapy in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has evolved from something PAH practitioners felt almost compelled to do, notwithstanding the absence of data, to a strategy proven by well-conducted randomized clinical trials. Whereas in the past, PAH treatment was limited to parenteral epoprostenol; today multiple drugs administrable either parenterally, inhaled, or orally have expanded the options for treating PAH patients. The SERIPHIN, AMBITION, and GRIPHON trials and emerging findings in FREEDOM-EV confirm the validity of a combined-therapy approach. Data from these trials in which either combined therapy was planned or an agent was added to background therapy have demonstrated significant reduction in the progression of disease and are on the cusp of demonstrating survival benefit. Combination therapy may be started simultaneously in some cases, but in many cases a stepped approach to initiating a second, or third, agent is better tolerated. Trials of all the specific combinations of drugs may not be possible, but a continuing trend toward treating PAH with multiple agents is likely. Currently, Food and Drug Administration-approved agents are predominantly pulmonary vasodilators acting through different pathways, with minimal impact on progression of the proliferative pulmonary arteriopathy that is the key pathologic finding in PAH. It is to be hoped that treatment strategies that result in halting progression and substantial reversal of pulmonary arteriolar obstruction will soon be discovered and available.

EXPRESS: Long term study of oral treprostinil to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension: dosing, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics

Oral treprostinil may be an option for low- and intermediate-risk patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension, a rare lung vascular disease. This open-label extension study collected data on participants who completed previously reported, placebo-controlled oral treprostinil studies. Eligible participants had completed the prospective parent studies and took increasing doses of oral treprostinil twice daily; some later transitioned to three times daily dosing. Investigators measured 6-minute walk distance at Month 12 as the sole efficacy measure but collected adverse events throughout the study. A single center measured pharmacokinetics in 13 subjects who changed dosing from twice daily to three times daily. Eight hundred and ninety-four participants enrolled and 71% completed one year of therapy, with a median total daily dose of 7 mg and a median 6-minute walk distance increase of 22 m (interquartile range, −14 to 67 m). Subjects achieving higher doses had larger increases in 6-minute walk distance; 42% of participants completed three years of therapy. Adverse events were typical for prostacyclin class therapy, but prostacyclin-type adverse events may have been better tolerated with three times daily dosing in 105 participants. In 13 participants transitioned to three times daily dosing with pharmacokinetic measurements before and after, trough drug levels were higher with three times daily dosing. Oral treprostinil is associated with modest but durable, dose-responsive effects on exercise tolerance for those who remained on therapy at one year in this prospective, uncontrolled study. Three times daily dosing was associated with higher trough levels and better tolerability. The recently completed Freedom-EV study will provide further insights into the utility of oral treprostinil (https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01560624 ).

Extended-release oral treprostinil in the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension: clinical evidence and experience

Treprostinil diolamine is the first oral prostacyclin approved for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) to improve exercise capacity. Clinical studies have demonstrated modest benefit as monotherapy, whereas no difference in exercise capacity was observed with combination therapy. However, these trials were limited by subtherapeutic dosing owing to intolerable adverse effects. Prostacyclin-related adverse effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, headache, flushing, and jaw pain, are prevalent. More recent pharmacokinetic and clinical studies illustrate the dose–response relationship and the importance of achieving clinically effective doses. Therefore, efforts to improve tolerability are paramount. Oral treprostinil is recommended to be administered three times daily in order to facilitate more rapid titration, higher doses achieved, and improved tolerability. Oral treprostinil has also been studied in carefully selected, stable patients that transitioned from parenteral or inhaled therapy with close monitoring for late deterioration. Ongoing clinical trials will determine the long-term effects of higher doses of oral treprostinil on clinical outcomes. This review describes the clinical evidence and practical experience with the use of oral treprostinil for PAH.

Dosing characteristics of oral treprostinil in real-world clinical practice

Pharmacokinetic studies with oral treprostinil demonstrate that three times daily (TID) dosing reduces peak-to-trough plasma trepostinil fluctuations compared with twice daily (BID) dosing. TID dosing may allow for faster titration, higher total daily doses, and potentially improve the tolerability of oral trepostinil. This analysis, which looks at the real-world dosing of oral treprostinil, supports the utility of TID dosing.

Transitioning Parenteral or Inhaled Treprostinil to Oral Treprostinil Diolamine: Case Series and Review of the Literature

Treprostinil diolamine is the first oral dosage preparation of a prostacyclin analogue for use in treatment naive pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This case series and review of the available literature describes the experience of patients with PAH receiving treprostinil by intravenous (IV), subcutaneous (SQ), or inhalation route who were transitioned to treprostinil diolamine. At our institution, 3 patients were transitioned to treprostinil diolamine who received treprostinil administered by each of the alternative routes: IV, SQ, and inhalation. All patients tolerated the transition without significant worsening of disease end points. In the literature, 5 additional reports representing 48 patients were transitioned to treprostinil diolamine from an alternate route of administration. A majority (92%) of patients were hospitalized during the cross-titration phase and tolerated the transition without changes in disease markers or significant adverse effect. Six (13%) patients required reinitiation of parenteral therapy due to clinical decline. The most common dosing frequency utilized for treprostinil diolamine was 3 times per day. In patients with stable PAH receiving parenteral or inhaled treprostinil, a transition to treprostinil diolamine was a safe approach in a highly select population meeting clinical end points. Additional studies are required to further describe this clinical strategy before accepted in clinical practice.

Impact of four times daily dosing of oral treprostinil on tolerability and daily dose achieved in pulmonary hypertension

Oral treprostinil (TRE) is a prostacylin that is approved for the treatment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Dosing is approved for two or three times daily (t.i.d.); however, adverse effects, including gastrointestinal-related symptoms, may limit the ability to reach optimal doses. We report our experience with a four times daily (q.i.d.) regimen of oral TRE for goal-directed therapy of PAH. We describe three patients that were transitioned from infusion or inhaled TRE to oral TRE with initial t.i.d. dosing over a four-day hospital stay. All patients were subsequently further dose-adjusted in the outpatient setting; however, adverse effects limited additional up-titration despite persistent dyspnea. In a carefully monitored outpatient setting, patients were switched from t.i.d. to q.i.d. dosing of oral TRE. All three patients were successfully dosed q.i.d., having achieved a higher total daily dose compared with a t.i.d. dose regimen. Furthermore, patients were able to maintain functional class II symptoms with mitigation of adverse effects using the q.i.d. dose regimen.

What Is the Role of Oral Prostacyclin Pathway Medications in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Management?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostacyclin pathway medications have been shown to be highly efficacious in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) through multiple prospective clinical trials and more than two decades of clinical experience. The strongest support for prostacyclin use in PAH management is with parenteral administration. Numerous risks and limitations of parenteral delivery systems as well as significant patient burdens restrict widespread parenteral use. Highly effective and tolerable oral prostacyclin preparations to manage PAH have long been sought. We review the development of the oral prostacyclin agents beraprost, treprostinil, and selexipag and including current indications and limitations. Research into new approaches to the management of PAH, expanding indications for existing agents, and development of novel agents are also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two oral prostacyclin pathway medications, oral treprostinil and selexipag, were FDA approved in December 2013 and 2015, respectively. Current guidelines recommend use of selexipag in WHO-FC II and III (class 1, level B recommendation) and oral treprostinil in WHO-FC III (class 2b, level B recommendation). The use of these medications is challenging due to complexity in dosing and their side effect profiles which limit patient tolerability and acceptance. There is a promising role for oral prostacyclin pathway medications in patients with PAH. Future investigations are underway of alternative dose regimens and transitioning from parenteral therapies in order to improve efficacy and tolerability.