Gaps in evidence in the treatment of prevalent patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension at intermediate risk: An expert consensus.
Expert consensus
Intermediate risk
PAH therapeutic options
Pulmonary arterial hypertension
Journal
Vascular pharmacology
ISSN: 1879-3649
Titre abrégé: Vascul Pharmacol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130615
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Sep 2024
10 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
06
07
2024
revised:
22
08
2024
accepted:
09
09
2024
medline:
13
9
2024
pubmed:
13
9
2024
entrez:
12
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Despite the innovations introduced in the 2022 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society Guidelines on Pulmonary Hypertension, risk discrimination and management of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients at intermediate risk still represents a grey zone. Additionally, clinical evidence derived from currently available studies is limited. This expert panel survey intends to aid physicians in choosing the best therapeutic strategy for patients at intermediate risk despite ongoing oral therapy. An expert panel of 24 physicians, specialized in cardiology and/or pulmonology with expertise in handling all drugs available for the treatment of PAH participated in the survey. All potential therapeutic options for patients at intermediate risk were explored and analyzed to produce graded consensus statements regarding: the switch from endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) or phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) to another oral drug of the same class; the addition of a drug targeting the prostacyclin pathway administered by different routes; the switch from PDE5i to riociguat.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39265796
pii: S1537-1891(24)00158-7
doi: 10.1016/j.vph.2024.107432
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
107432Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest S. Ghio reports personal fees from MSD and Ferrer, outside the submitted work. R. Badagliacca reports personal fees from UT, Dompè, Ferrer, Bayer, MSD and AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. R. Benza reports receiving grants from Actelion, Bayer AG, Bellerophon Therapeutics and Eiger Biopharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. C. D. Vizza reports personal fees from GSK, UT, Dompè, Bayer and MSD, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.