Search

Inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) has been shown to be a safe and effective addition to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) oral therapies; however, the respiratory-related safety profile of inhaled treprostinil required further elucidation in the setting of routine clinical care. The objectives of this study were to characterize respiratory-related adverse events (AEs) associated with current or recent treatment with inhaled treprostinil and to compare the incidence of respiratory-related AEs in PAH patients treated with inhaled treprostinil with that in patients treated with other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved PAH therapies. This was a long-term, prospective, observational study. All respiratory-related AEs were recorded during the study. The number of PAH patients enrolled was 1,333, 666 treated with inhaled treprostinil and 667 controls (treated with an FDA-approved PAH therapy other than inhaled treprostinil), for a total of 958 and 1,094 patient-years of exposure, respectively. In the inhaled-treprostinil group, 1,281 respiratory-related AEs were reported in 403 patients (61%), and in the control group, 1,295 respiratory-related AEs were reported in 388 patients (58%). Cough, throat irritation, nasal discomfort, and hemoptysis were the most common respiratory-related AEs (occurring in ≥2% of patients in either treatment group) that demonstrated a higher number of events per patient-year of exposure in the inhaled-treprostinil group than in the control group (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.487 [1.172–1.887], 3.777 [2.050–6.956], 2.039 [1.072–3.879], and 1.957 [1.024–3.741], respectively). Overall, inhaled treprostinil was well tolerated by PAH patients in routine clinical care, with respiratory-related AEs consistent with the known safety profile (trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01266265).

Inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) has been shown to be a safe and effective addition to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) oral therapies; however, the respiratory-related safety profile of inhaled treprostinil required further elucidation in the setting of routine clinical care. The objectives of this study were to characterize respiratory-related adverse events (AEs) associated with current or recent treatment with inhaled treprostinil and to compare the incidence of respiratory-related AEs in PAH patients treated with inhaled treprostinil with that in patients treated with other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved PAH therapies. This was a long-term, prospective, observational study. All respiratory-related AEs were recorded during the study. The number of PAH patients enrolled was 1,333, 666 treated with inhaled treprostinil and 667 controls (treated with an FDA-approved PAH therapy other than inhaled treprostinil), for a total of 958 and 1,094 patient-years of exposure, respectively. In the inhaled-treprostinil group, 1,281 respiratory-related AEs were reported in 403 patients (61%), and in the control group, 1,295 respiratory-related AEs were reported in 388 patients (58%). Cough, throat irritation, nasal discomfort, and hemoptysis were the most common respiratory-related AEs (occurring in ≥2% of patients in either treatment group) that demonstrated a higher number of events per patient-year of exposure in the inhaled-treprostinil group than in the control group (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.487 [1.172–1.887], 3.777 [2.050–6.956], 2.039 [1.072–3.879], and 1.957 [1.024–3.741], respectively). Overall, inhaled treprostinil was well tolerated by PAH patients in routine clinical care, with respiratory-related AEs consistent with the known safety profile (trial registration: clinicaltrials.govidentifier: NCT01266265).

The mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) trial involved 650 heart transplant patients from 28 centers who received MMF or azathioprine (AZA), both in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Baseline and 1‐year intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) were performed in 196 patients (102 MMF and 94 AZA) with no differences between groups in IVUS results analyzed by morphometric analysis (average of 10 evenly spaced sites, without matching sites between studies). Baseline to first‐year IVUS data can also be analyzed by site‐to‐site analysis (matching sites between studies), which has been reported to be more clinically relevant. Therefore, we used site‐to‐site analysis to reanalyze the multicenter MMF IVUS data. Results: IVUS images were reviewed and interpretable in 190 patients (99 MMF and 91 AZA) from the multicenter randomized trial. The AZA group compared to the MMF group had a larger number of patients with first‐year maximal intimal thickness (MIT) ≥0.3 mm (43% vs. 23%, p = 0.005), a greater decrease in the mean lumen area (p = 0.02) and a decrease in the mean vessel area (the area actually increased in the MMF group, p = 0.03). Conclusion: MMF‐treated heart transplant patients compared to AZA‐treated patients, both concurrently on cyclosporine and corticosteroids, in this study have significantly less progression of first‐year intimal thickening.