Recommendations for the clinical management of patients receiving macitentan for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH): A Delphi consensus document

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.

The clinical experience of macitentan in pulmonary hypertension in Indian cohort: 12-month follow-up

Background:

The effectiveness and safety of macitentan, an endothelin-receptor antagonist (ERA) in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), has been demonstrated in numerous randomized clinical trials including SERAPHIN, focused on the reduction of morbidity and mortality.

Objectives:

Our aim was to demonstrate the clinical and echocardiographic progression using macitentan in Indian patients with PAH.

Settings and Design:

It was a retrospective study of 20 patients with multiple etiologies of PAH who had begun macitentan in routine clinical practice from a single center. There were 55% of patients with existing PAH therapies.

Subjects and Methods:

The World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC), 6-min walking distance, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide level (NT-pro-BNP), and echocardiographic data such as tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP), and the occurrence of pericardial effusion were collected at baseline and 12-month follow-up. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software.

Results:

Of the 20 PAH patients, 70% were women. The majority were in WHO FC II (50%), while 35% were in FC III and 15% were in FC IV. The mean age was 43.4 years at the start of the therapy with macitentan. After 6 months of macitentan therapy, 85% showed substantial improvement in their FC, each increased its 6-min walking distance test (P < 0.0001), and there was a significant reduction in plasma levels of NT-pro BNP (P < 0.0001). There has also been an improvement in echocardiographic parameters such as TAPSE and sPAP (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions:

Our findings indicate that macitentan has been well tolerated and beneficial in Indian patients with PAH and further, future research is required to verify these results.

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.

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