BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Subcutaneous treprostinil is an effective treatment for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). A previous pivotal study indicated that infusion site pain was dose dependent and resulted in suboptimal dose escalation by week 12 and a reduced clinical benefit. We hypothesized that a rapid-escalation treprostinil dosing regimen would be as safe and effective as a slow-escalation dosing regimen. METHODS: Twenty-three patients received treprostinil to treat PH of various aetiologies and were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (11 patients: seven females and four males, aged 51.7 +/- 15.4 years) received a slow-escalation regimen, and group 2 (12 patients: ten females and two males, aged 51.3 +/- 16.7 years) were exposed to rapid dose escalation. The dose escalation, exercise capacity (a 6-minute walk test [6WT] or a shuttle walk test [SWT]), WHO classification, blood pressure, heart rate, respiration rate, baseline haemodynamics and adverse events were followed up for 12 weeks. RESULTS:Baseline haemodynamics did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. At follow-up, the treprostinil dose reached 12.9 +/- 2.7 ng/kg/min in group 1 and 20.3 +/- 5.8 ng/kg/min in group 2 (p < 0.01). The patients' WHO classification improved significantly (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups. Improvement of exercise capacity was greater in group 2 (6WT and SWT, p < 0.05). Infusion site pain occurred in 81.8% of group 1 and in 58.3% of group 2 (p < 0.05) patients. Other adverse events and changes in the heart rate, respiration rate and blood pressure were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The rapid-dosing regimen is as safe and effective as the slow-escalation regimen and may be associated with even better clinical outcomes. Infusion site pain is not dose dependent.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Subcutaneous treprostinil is an effective treatment for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). A previous pivotal study indicated that infusion site pain was dose dependent and resulted in suboptimal dose escalation by week 12 and a reduced clinical benefit. We hypothesized that a rapid-escalation treprostinil dosing regimen would be as safe and effective as a slow-escalation dosing regimen. METHODS: Twenty-three patients received treprostinil to treat PH of various aetiologies and were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (11 patients: seven females and four males, aged 51.7 +/- 15.4 years) received a slow-escalation regimen, and group 2 (12 patients: ten females and two males, aged 51.3 +/- 16.7 years) were exposed to rapid dose escalation. The dose escalation, exercise capacity (a 6-minute walk test [6WT] or a shuttle walk test [SWT]), WHO classification, blood pressure, heart rate, respiration rate, baseline haemodynamics and adverse events were followed up for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Baseline haemodynamics did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. At follow-up, the treprostinil dose reached 12.9 +/- 2.7 ng/kg/min in group 1 and 20.3 +/- 5.8 ng/kg/min in group 2 (p < 0.01). The patients' WHO classification improved significantly (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups. Improvement of exercise capacity was greater in group 2 (6WT and SWT, p < 0.05). Infusion site pain occurred in 81.8% of group 1 and in 58.3% of group 2 (p < 0.05) patients. Other adverse events and changes in the heart rate, respiration rate and blood pressure were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The rapid-dosing regimen is as safe and effective as the slow-escalation regimen and may be associated with even better clinical outcomes. Infusion site pain is not dose dependent.
Authors: R M Tuder; C D Cool; M W Geraci; J Wang; S H Abman; L Wright; D Badesch; N F Voelkel Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Vallerie V McLaughlin; Kenneth W Presberg; Ramona L Doyle; Steven H Abman; Douglas C McCrory; Terry Fortin; Gregory Ahearn Journal: Chest Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Nazzareno Galiè; Adam Torbicki; Robyn Barst; Philippe Dartevelle; Sheila Haworth; Tim Higenbottam; Horst Olschewski; Andrew Peacock; Giuseppe Pietra; Lewis J Rubin; Gerald Simonneau; Silvia G Priori; Maria Angeles Alonso Garcia; Jean-Jacques Blanc; Andrzej Budaj; Martin Cowie; Verconcia Dean; Jaap Deckers; Enrique Fernandez Burgos; John Lekakis; Bertil Lindahl; Gianfranco Mazzotta; Keith McGregor; João Morais; Ali Oto; Otto A Smiseth; Joan Albert Barbera; Simon Gibbs; Marius Hoeper; Marc Humbert; Robert Naeije; Joanna Pepke-Zaba Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Robert Voswinckel; Beate Enke; Frank Reichenberger; Markus Kohstall; Andree Kreckel; Stefanie Krick; Henning Gall; Tobias Gessler; Thomas Schmehl; Hossein A Ghofrani; Ralph Theo Schermuly; Friedrich Grimminger; Lewis J Rubin; Werner Seeger; Horst Olschewski Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-09-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael McGoon; David Gutterman; Virginia Steen; Robin Barst; Douglas C McCrory; Terry A Fortin; James E Loyd Journal: Chest Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Peter Steele; Geoff Strange; John Wlodarczyk; Brad Dalton; Simon Stewart; Eli Gabbay; Anne Keogh Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Vijay P Balasubramanian; Zeenat Safdar; Margaret R Sketch; Meredith Broderick; Andrew C Nelsen; Dasom Lee; Lana Melendres-Groves Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 2.886