Efficacy and safety outcomes of recanalization procedures in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background We aimed to review the efficacy and safety of recanalisation procedures for the treatment of PE. Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science and CINAHL databases from inception through 31 July 2015 and included randomised clinical trials that compared the effect of a recanalisation procedure versus each other or anticoagulant therapy in patients diagnosed with PE. We used network meta-analysis and multivariate randomeffects meta-regression to estimate pooled differences between each intervention and meta-regression to assess the association between trial characteristics and the reported effects of recanalisation procedures versus anticoagulation. Results For all-cause mortality, there were no significant differences in event rates between any of the recanalisation procedures and anticoagulant treatment (full-dose thrombolysis: OR 0.60; 95% CI0.36 to 1.01; low-dose thrombolysis: 0.47; 95%CI 0.14 to 1.59; and catheter-associated thrombolysis: 0.31; 95%CI 0.01 to 7.96). Full-dose thrombolysis increased the risk of major bleeding (2.00; 95%CI 1.06 to 3.78) compared with anticoagulation. Catheter-directed thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of dying (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 0.67), followed by low-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.66) and full-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.55). Similarly, low-dose thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of major bleeding (SUCRA, 0.61), followed by catheterdirected thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.54) and full-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.17). The results were similar in sensitivity analyses based on restricting only to studies in haemodynamically stable patients with PE. Conclusions In the treatment of PE, recanalisation procedures do not seem to offer a clear advantage compared with standard anticoagulation. Low-dose thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of dying and bleedingpre-print549 K

Long-Term Survival, Safety and Tolerability with Selexipag in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Results from GRIPHON and its Open-Label Extension

INTRODUCTION: In the event-driven GRIPHON randomised-controlled trial, the oral prostacyclin receptor agonist selexipag significantly reduced the risk of disease progression (composite primary endpoint of morbidity/mortality), compared with placebo, in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The ongoing open-label extension study (GRIPHON OL) collects further data on long-term safety, tolerability, and survival of PAH patients treated with selexipag. METHODS: Patients randomised to selexipag or placebo in GRIPHON could enter GRIPHON OL either after experiencing a morbidity event during double-blind treatment or at the end of the study. Patients were followed for adverse events (AE) and survival from selexipag initiation up to 3 days and 30 days after end of treatment, respectively. Data are presented up to a cut-off date of 1 September 2019. RESULTS: Overall, 953 patients in GRIPHON and GRIPHON OL were treated with selexipag. At the time of selexipag initiation, 81.2% of patients were receiving background PAH therapy. Median (min, max) exposure to selexipag was 31.7 months (0, 106), corresponding to a total of 3054.4 patient-years. The most frequently reported AEs were related to known prostacyclin-related effects or underlying disease. There were 305 (32.0%) patients who experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation. Survival during GRIPHON and GRIPHON OL was assessed for the 574 patients randomised to selexipag in GRIPHON. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates (95%CI) at 1, 3, 5 and 7 years were 92.0% (89.4, 94.0), 79.3% (75.4, 82.6), 71.2% (66.5, 75.3) and 63.0% (57.4, 68.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide the longest follow-up period published to date for a PAH therapy. The safety profile of selexipag over this extended treatment period was consistent with that observed in GRIPHON. A large proportion of the population was receiving background therapy at selexipag initiation, providing further insight into the long-term safety of selexipag as part of a combination therapy regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01106014 and NCT01112306

Relationship Between Time From Diagnosis and Morbidity/Mortality in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Results From the Phase III GRIPHON Study

BACKGROUND: Early initiation of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) therapies is associated with improved long-term outcomes, yet data on the early use of prostacyclin pathway agents are limited. In these post hoc analyses of the Prostacyclin (PGI(2)) Receptor Agonist In Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (GRIPHON) study, the largest randomized controlled trial for PAH to date, the prognostic value of time from diagnosis and its impact on treatment response were examined. RESEARCH QUESTION: How does time from diagnosis impact morbidity/mortality events and response to selexipag treatment in patients with PAH? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The GRIPHON study randomly assigned 1,156 patients with PAH to selexipag or placebo treatment. Patients were categorized post hoc into a time from diagnosis of ≤ 6 months and > 6 months at randomization. Hazard ratios (selexipag vs placebo) were calculated for the primary end point of morbidity/mortality by time from diagnosis using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Time from diagnosis was ≤ 6 months in 34.9% and > 6 months in 65.1% of patients. Time from diagnosis was prognostic of morbidity/mortality, with newly diagnosed patients having a poorer long-term outcome than patients diagnosed for longer. Compared with placebo, selexipag reduced the risk of morbidity/mortality in patients with a time from diagnosis of ≤ 6 months and > 6 months, with a more pronounced effect in newly diagnosed patients (hazard ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.33-0.63] and 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57-0.96], respectively; P = .0219 for interaction). INTERPRETATION: In the GRIPHON study, newly diagnosed PAH patients had a worse prognosis than patients with a longer time from diagnosis. The benefit of selexipag treatment on disease progression was more pronounced in patients treated earlier than in patients treated later. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01106014; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

risk assessment in pulmonary arterial hypertension insights from the griphon study

BACKGROUND Approaches to risk assessment in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) include the noninvasive French risk assessment approach (number of low-risk criteria based on the European Society of Cardiology and European Respiratory Society guidelines) and Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-term PAH Disease Management (REVEAL) 2.0 risk calculator. The prognostic and predictive value of these methods for morbidity/mortality was evaluated in the predominantly prevalent population of GRIPHON, the largest randomized controlled trial in PAH. METHODS GRIPHON randomized 1,156 patients with PAH to selexipag or placebo. Post-hoc analyses were performed on the primary composite end-point of morbidity/mortality by the number of low-risk criteria (World Health Organization functional class I-II; 6-minute walk distance >440 m; N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide RESULTS Both the number of low-risk criteria and the REVEAL 2.0 risk category were prognostic for morbidity/mortality at baseline and any time-point during the study. Patients with 3 low-risk criteria at baseline had a 94% reduced risk of morbidity/mortality compared to patients with 0 low-risk criteria and were all categorized as low-risk by REVEAL 2.0. The treatment effect of selexipag on morbidity/mortality was consistent irrespective of the number of low-risk criteria or the REVEAL 2.0 risk category at any time-point during the study. Selexipag-treated patients were more likely to increase their number of low-risk criteria from baseline to week 26 than placebo-treated patients (odds ratio 1.69, p = 0.0002); similar results were observed for REVEAL 2.0 risk score. CONCLUSIONS These results support the association between risk profile and long-term outcome and suggest that selexipag treatment may improve risk profile

Results of an Expert Consensus Survey on the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension With Oral Prostacyclin Pathway Agents

Background Treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has evolved substantially over the past two decades and varies according to etiology, functional class (FC), hemodynamic parameters, and other clinical factors. Current guidelines do not provide definitive recommendations regarding the use of oral prostacyclin pathway agents (PPAs) in PAH. To provide guidance on the use of these agents, an expert panel was convened to develop consensus statements for the initiation of oral PPAs in adults with PAH. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE. The established RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method, which incorporates the Delphi method and the nominal group technique, was used to create consensus statements. Idiopathic, heritable, repaired congenital heart defect, and drug- or toxin-induced PAH (IPAH+) was considered as one etiologic grouping. The process was focused on the use of oral treprostinil or selexipag in patients with IPAH+ or connective tissue disease-associated PAH and FC II or III symptoms receiving background dual endothelin receptor antagonist/phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor therapy. Results The panel developed 14 consensus statements regarding the appropriate use of oral PPAs in the target population. The panel identified 13 clinical scenarios in which selexipag may be considered as a treatment option. Conclusions The paucity of clinical evidence overall, and particularly from randomized trials in this setting, creates a gap in knowledge. These consensus statements are intended to aid physicians in navigating treatment options and using oral PPAs in the most appropriate manner in patients with PAH

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension-Related Morbidity Is Prognostic for Mortality

BACKGROUND: Registry data suggest that disease progression in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is indicative of poor prognosis. However, the prognostic relevance of PAH-related morbidity has not been formally evaluated in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of these analyses was to assess the impact of morbidity events on the risk of subsequent mortality using the landmark method and data from the SERAPHIN and GRIPHON studies. METHODS: For each study, the risk of all-cause death up to the end of the study was assessed from the landmark time point (months 3, 6, and 12) according to whether a patient had experienced a primary endpoint morbidity event before the landmark. Each analysis was conducted using data from all patients who were available for survival follow-up at the landmark. RESULTS: In the SERAPHIN study, on the basis of the 3-month landmark time point, patients who experienced a morbidity event before month 3 had an increased risk of death compared with patients who did not (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.94 to 5.92). In the GRIPHON study, on the basis of the 3-month landmark time point, there was also an increased risk with a HR of 4.48; (95% CI: 2.98 to 6.73). Analyses based on 6-month and 12-month landmarks also showed increased risk in patients who experienced morbidity events, albeit with a reduced HR. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the prognostic relevance of PAH-related morbidity as defined in the SERAPHIN and GRIPHON studies, highlighting the importance of preventing disease progression in patients with PAH and supporting the clinical relevance of SERAPHIN and GRIPHON morbidity events. (Study of Macitentan [ACT-064992] on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Symptomatic Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension [SERAPHIN]; NCT00660179; Selexipag [ACT-293987] in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension [GRIPHON]; NCT01106014). ispartof: Journal of the American College of Cardiology vol:71 issue:7 pages:752-763 ispartof: location:United States status: publishe

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705. opens in new tab.

The Effects of Sleep Hypoxia on Coagulant Factors and Hepatic Inflammation in Emphysematous Rats

OBJECTIVES: To develop a sleep hypoxia (SH) in emphysema (SHE) rat model and to explore whether SHE results in more severe hepatic inflammation than emphysema alone and whether the inflammation changes levels of coagulant/anticoagulant factors synthesized in the liver. METHODS: Seventy-five rats were put into 5 groups: SH control (SHCtrl), treated with sham smoke exposure (16 weeks) and SH exposure (12.5% O(2), 3 h/d, latter 8 weeks); emphysema control (ECtrl), smoke exposure and sham SH exposure (21% O(2)); short SHE (SHEShort), smoke exposure and short SH exposure (1.5 h/d); mild SHE (SHEMild), smoke exposure and mild SH exposure (15% O(2)); standard SHE (SHEStand), smoke exposure and SH exposure. Therefore, ECtrl, SHEShort, SHEMild and SHEStand group were among emphysematous groups. Arterial blood gas (ABG) data was obtained during preliminary tests. After exposure, hepatic inflammation (interleukin -6 [IL-6] mRNA and protein, tumor necrosis factor α [TNFα] mRNA and protein) and liver coagulant/anticoagulant factors (antithrombin [AT], fibrinogen [FIB] and Factor VIII [F VIII]) were evaluated. SPSS 11.5 software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Characteristics of emphysema were obvious in emphysematous groups and ABGs reached SH criteria on hypoxia exposure. Hepatic inflammation parameters and coagulant factors are the lowest in SHCtrl and the highest in SHEStand while AT is the highest in SHCtrl and the lowest in SHEStand. Inflammatory cytokines of liver correlate well with coagulant factors positively and with AT negatively. CONCLUSIONS: When SH is combined with emphysema, hepatic inflammation and coagulability enhance each other synergistically and produce a more significant liver-derivative inflammatory and prothrombotic status

Diagnostic value of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 and C-reactive protein for patients with lung infiltrates: an observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Differential diagnosis of patients with lung infiltrates remains a challenge. Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells (TREM)-1 is a neutrophil and monocyte receptor up-regulated during infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of TREM-1 and of C-reactive protein (CRP) from patients with lung infiltrates to discern community acquired lung infections.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>68 patients admitted to a medical ward with acute respiratory illness were enrolled in the study. Neutrophil and monocyte TREM-1 expression were measured by flow cytometry, sTREM-1 by an enzyme immunoassay and C-reactive protein by nephelometry. Clinical pulmonary infection score was recorded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>34 patients were diagnosed with bacterial community acquired pneumonia (group A) and 34 with non-bacterial pulmonary disease (group B). Median serum TREM-1 concentration was 102.09 pg/ml in group A and lower than 15.10 pg/ml (p < 0.0001) in group B. Mean±SE neutrophil TREM-1 expression was 4.67 ± 0.53 MFI in group A and 2.64 ± 0.25 MFI (p = 0.001) in group B. Monocyte TREM-1 expression was 4.2 ± 0.42 MFI in group A and 2.64 ± 0.35 MFI (p = 0.007) in group B and mean±SE CRP was 18.03 ± 2 mg/ml in group A and 7.1 ± 1.54 mg/ml (p < 0.001) in group B. A cut-off of 19.53 pg/ml of sTREM-1 with sensitivity 82.6% and specificity 63% to discriminate between infectious and non-infectious pulmonary infiltrates was found. sTREM-1 at admission greater than 180 pg/ml was accompanied with unfavourable outcome.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>TREM-1 myeloid expression and sTREM-1 are reliable markers of bacterial infection among patients with pulmonary infiltrates; sTREM-1 is a predictor of final outcome.</p