Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in ... - ATS Journals

Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Clinical Trials Who Are They? Nicholas S. Hill1, Ioana R. Preston1, and Kari E. Roberts1 1

Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

Results from clinical trials serve as the basis for approval of therapies by regulatory agencies as well as for treatment decisions by clinicians. But these findings are relevant only to patients who are similar to the ones enrolled into the trials. This is germane to clinical trials on pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) because the disease is uncommon but highly heterogeneous and results can easily be misapplied. The characteristics of patients entering the trials are largely determined by inclusion/exclusion criteria, with the result that most participants have idiopathic, connective tissue disease– and congenital heart disease–related PAH. Earlier trials enrolled patients mainly with New York Heart Association functional class III and IV disease and with severe pulmonary hemodynamic abnormalities. Because it has been the major outcome variable in most of the trials, eligibility is also dependent on six-minute-walk distance, ensuring that patients are moderately but not too severely functionally impaired, thereby maximizing the likelihood of detecting a favorable response to therapy. More recent trials have enrolled less ill patients, with more patients with New York Heart Association functional class II disease, less severe hemodynamic abnormalities, and more stability over time. This reflects, in part, ethical concerns about enrolling sicker patients into placebo-controlled trials. Trials have mainly enrolled white females in their 40s and 50s and have consistently excluded non-WHO group 1 forms of pulmonary hypertension. These characteristics must be carefully considered when applying the findings of pulmonary hypertension trials in clinical practice. Keywords: randomized controlled trial; prostacyclin; endothelin receptor antagonist; phosphodiesterase inhibitor

Clinicians rely on evidence from clinical trials to guide them in selecting the best therapies for their patients. However, it is important to consider that the results of clinical trials apply only to patients who are similar to those enrolled in the trials. Therefore, if the characteristics of patients in a given trial do not resemble those of most patients seen in clinical practice, these results may have very limited applicability. For this reason, understanding the characteristics of patients enrolled into trials is important. Many considerations come into play when clinical trials are designed. The designers must identify the target population as clearly as possible and exclude patients whose comorbidities might add to variability, or whose safety might be threatened by inclusion. Characteristics of the target population depend partly on the end points selected; clinical researchers and particularly

(Received in original form March 28, 2008; accepted in final form May 29, 2008) Support for this conference, including travel for each of the authors, was provided by unrestricted educational grants from Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, United Therapeutics, and Lung Rx, Inc. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Nicholas S. Hill, M.D., Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, #257, Boston, MA 02111. E-mail: nhill@ tuftsmedicalcenter.org Proc Am Thorac Soc Vol 5. pp 603–609, 2008 DOI: 10.1513/pats.200803-032SK Internet address: www.atsjournals.org

sponsors want end points that are likely to show favorable outcomes and are acceptable to approval agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The study population is then targeted to optimize the likelihood of showing a favorable response to the main outcome variable. These considerations are highly relevant to the design of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) clinical trials. An orphan disease, PAH affords a relatively small patient population for study, rendering outcomes such as survival difficult to attain. Thus, easier to achieve functional outcomes have been the primary variables in most of the PAH trials to date. This means that patients entering the trials are selected for a certain baseline functional capacity to maximize the likelihood of achieving significant benefit. In this article, we will expand on these concepts, discuss principles of patient recruitment, examine inclusion and exclusion criteria, and analyze the clinical characteristics of the patients who are actually enrolled. Using these metrics as a guide, we will assess key randomized trials for PAH that have led to approval of currently available drugs (and some that failed to get approval). Understanding the composition of these target populations will inform our decision making when selecting current PAH pharmacotherapies for individual patients.

TARGET POPULATION: INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA Defining the target population is a key part of clinical trial design. Ideally, the target population of the study reflects the characteristics of most patients with the disease, but this may not always be the case. The inclusions aim to limit heterogeneity as much as possible. They also attempt to maximize the likelihood of a favorable response to key outcome variables. Exclusions also limit heterogeneity and eliminate patients who are inappropriate for reasons such as pregnancy or those who might be harmed by the therapy. In the end, an overly specified target population may render results applicable to only a minority of affected patients. The goal is to create a study cohort that is reflective of the disease population, yet homogenous enough to ensure that outcomes truly reflect the impact of the intervention, rather than differences between individual subjects. Pharmaceutical companies, which sponsor most of the clinical trials on PAH, desire end points that are clinically meaningful, but they must be acceptable to approval agencies such as the FDA in the United States or similar agencies in other countries. They must also lead to approval for potentially effective pharmacotherapies as quickly and economically as possible. Naturally, these considerations influence selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria. As an orphan disease, the pool of patients with PAH is relatively small and approval agencies ‘‘discount’’ end points, permitting outcomes besides survival that would not be acceptable in trials on more common diseases, such as coronary artery disease. Thus, most PAH trials use a functional outcome as the primary variable; the distance walked in 6 minutes (also referred to as the six-minute-walk

604

PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY VOL 5

2008

test). Accordingly, inclusion criteria target patients who are most likely to improve functionally; they can walk a minimal distance (.100–150 m) but not far enough (,400–475 m) to make detection of improvement unlikely due to a possible ‘‘ceiling effect’’ (1). Ethical considerations are also important, in that the availability of effective alternative therapies makes it difficult to recruit patients into placebo-controlled trials. This favors the enrollment of patients who are likely to be stable for the duration of the study, usually 12 to 16 weeks for PAH trials. Even when not explicitly stated in the inclusion/exclusion criteria, this influences investigators to enroll patients who have been stable over the prior several months. Rather than entry into the study, less stable patients are usually offered an approved therapy previously shown to be effective.

RECRUITMENT AND ENROLLMENT Once the target population is identified, the challenge from the standpoint of conducting a clinical trial becomes recruitment and enrollment. As shown in Figure 1, not all targeted patients are screened to enroll in a trial, perhaps because personnel are not always available to enroll them or they are deemed to be too unstable; thus, the potential number of enrollees drops off. Another drop occurs when patients are screened, because some do not meet inclusion criteria or have exclusions, further reducing the number of patients who are deemed to be eligible. Among those patients who meet entry criteria and are offered enrollment, some may decline the invitation to participate in a research study or live too far away. In the end, only a portion of the screened patients are enrolled, known as the ‘‘recruitment fraction’’ (2). This is important to report, because it reflects how well the enrolled population represents the targeted one. In a survey of 172 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association, Gross and colleagues (2) found that the recruitment fraction was reported in only 43% of trials. Among studies reporting recruitment data, the mean screen success rate was 65% and, on average, 93% of patients who passed screening were enrolled. This means that among the studies reporting the recruitment fraction, approximately two-thirds of screened patients were actually enrolled in the trials. Furthermore, 20 of the 172 trials reported a recruitment fraction of 100%, indicating that there were absolutely no screen failures or refusals to enroll. Some studies have very low recruitment fractions. This can be a problem if the inclusion criteria are very narrow or there are many exclusion criteria. A study of inhaled nitric oxide to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome had a recruitment fraction of only 5.6%, raising serious questions about its applicability to the greater population with acute respiratory distress syndrome (3). How much this problem applies to PAH trials is unknown, because none have reported recruitment fractions. On the other hand, if inclusion criteria are too broad and exclusions too few, the recruitment fraction is increased at the expense of greater heterogeneity of enrolled patients, making it difficult to apply trial results to each subgroup within the study population. This is relevant to PAH trials, which commonly enroll patients with potentially diverse pathophysiologic states, such as idiopathic, connective tissue disease– and congenital heart disease–associated forms of PAH. Overall benefit in the trial could be driven by a populous subgroup, obscuring lack of benefit or even harm in a smaller subgroup. We encourage the reporting of recruitment fractions in future clinical trials on PAH, to better characterize the population enrolled.

Figure 1. Algorithm for screening and enrolling patients in clinical trials. Recruitment fraction 5 enrolled subjects/screened subjects.

INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA IN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PAH TRIALS Table 1 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the key RCTs used by the FDA to approve currently available PAH therapies, as well as some of the more recent combination trials. These trials have a number of entry criteria in common. Virtually all of them (with one exception noted below) have included only patients with PAH (World Health Organization [WHO] group 1; see Table 2). With the exception of a few recent trials that have added new therapies to existing ones, the studies excluded patients on other PAH therapies. All required that patients undergo right heart catheterizations, either at the time of enrollment in the earlier trials or within the previous few years in some of the more recent trials. Most used pulmonary hemodynamic criteria to define PAH based on those used in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry, which collected data during the early 1980s (4). These include a mean pulmonary artery pressure (Ppa) of 25 mm Hg or greater, a pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) of 3 or more Wood units, and a pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure of 15 mm Hg or less. The first large RCT of a drug to treat PAH was the intravenous epoprostenol trial performed during the mid-1990s (5). It used an open-label rather than blinded design because it was considered unethical to insert a sham central intravenous catheter into patients in the control group. Eligible subjects fit the NIH registry definition of primary pulmonary hypertension, which, unlike most of the more recent trials, included portopulmonary hypertension but not other forms of PAH currently included in group 1 of the WHO classification (Table 2). Of note, individuals with connective tissue disease, congenital heart disease, and HIVrelated disease were excluded. The trial targeted New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III and IV patients who had failed ‘‘optimal’’ conventional medical therapy, including calcium channel blocker therapy. Although the six-minute-walk distance was the major outcome variable, there were no limits on distance walked to be eligible for enrollment. The next RCT (Table 1), the subcutaneous treprostinil trial (6), ostensibly a double-blind trial, was effectively unblinded due to the frequent occurrence of pain at the infusion site in the active treatment group. This trial added inclusion criteria seen in most subsequent trials—an age range, inclusion of patients with connective tissue and congenital heart disease—and excluded those with portopulmonary hypertension. It also included NYHA class II patients rather than only patients with

Hill, Preston, and Roberts: Patients in PAH Trials

605

TABLE 1. INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA IN THE RELEVANT STUDIES ON PULMONARY ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION Study (Reference No.)

Study Design

Epoprostenol (5)

Open label 12 wk 81 patients RCT 12 wk 470 patients RCT 16 wk 213 patients RCT 12 wk 203 patients RCT 52 wk 116 patients RCT 12 wk 178 patients RCT 12 wk 278 patients RCT 12 wk 393 patients RCT 12 wk 67 patients RCT 16 wk 267 patients RCT 6 mo 185 patients

Treprostinil, subcutaneous (6)

Bosentan (7) BREATHE 1 Iloprost (8) AIR Beraprost (9)

Sitaxsentan (10) STRIDE 1 Sildenafil (11) SUPER 1 Ambrisentan (12) ARIES 1 and 2 Iloprost 1 bosentan (13) COMBI Sildenafil 1 epoprostenol (14) PACES Bosentan 1 sildenafil (15) EARLY

Inclusions

Exclusions

PPH* NYHA III, IV

Other PH

IPAH, CTD, CHD NYHA II–IV

Other PH 6MWD ,50 or .450 m

IPAH, CTD NYHA III, stable IV

6MWD ,150 or .450 m

IPAH, anorex, CTEPH

6MWD ,50 or .500 m PAOP .15 mm Hg FVC ,50% PAH diagnosed more than 1 mo

IPAH, CTD, CHD NYHA II, III IPAH, CTD, CHD V_ O2max 25–75%

Other PH

IPAH, CTD, repaired CHD

6MWD ,100 or .450 m Other PAH therapies

IPAH, CTD, HIV, anorex

6MWD ,150 or .450 m

IPAH, CTD, CHD >4 mo on bosentan

6MWD ,100 or .425 m FEV1/FVC ,50% TLC ,60% 6MWD ,100 or .450 m Other PAH therapies

IPAH, anorex, CTD, repaired CHD >16 yr IPAH, CTD, CHD NYHA II (mild) .12 yr

Other PH 6MWD .80% predicted or 500m TLC ,80% Borg dyspnea score .2

Definition of abbreviations: anorex 5 anorexigen-associated PAH; Borg 5 subjective Borg dyspnea score; CHD 5 congenital heart disease–associated PAH; CTD 5 collagen vascular disease–associated PAH; CTEPH 5 chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension; HIV 5 HIV associated PAH; IPAH 5 idiopathic PAH; NYHA 5 New York Heart Association; PAH 5 pulmonary arterial hypertension; PAOP 5 pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; PH 5 pulmonary hypertension; PPH 5 primary pulmonary hypertension; RCT 5 randomized control trial; 6MWD 5 six-minute-walk distance. * PPH defined by the National Institutes of Health registry included IPAH, familial PAH, and portopulmonary hypertension.

class III and IV disease. Another novel feature was to include limits on the six-minute-walk distance, although these were broad. This was done to ensure that enrolled patients could walk, but not too far, thus increasing the likelihood of detecting differences in the main outcome variable. The largest bosentan RCT, BREATHE 1 (Bosentan Randomized Trial of Endothelin Receptor Antagonist Therapy for Pulmonary Hypertension), enrolled NYHA class III and IV patients (7). However, the class IV patients were also ‘‘required to have a sufficiently stable clinical status to enable them to participate in a placebo-controlled trial.’’ This proviso raises the question as to whether the NYHA class IV patients in this trial were comparable to those in other trials or even to those seen in everyday clinical practice. Patients with connective tissue disease were included, but not those with congenital heart disease. Patients had to have a minimal initial six-minute-walk distance of 150 m, slightly more than the earlier studies (Table 1), with a maximum of 450 m. The aerosolized iloprost (AIR) trial (8), performed in Europe, was unique in that it enrolled not only patients with idiopathic and anorexigen-associated PAH, but also those with WHO group 3 chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, unlike other trials. It had a higher upper limit for the six-minute-walk distance (500 m) and slightly different inclusion criteria for hemodynamics. These included a relatively high minimal Ppa of greater than

30 mm Hg and a cardiac index (CI) between 1.5 and 4 L/minute/ m2, although the requirement for a pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure of 15 mm Hg or less was similar to other trials. More recently published RCTs (Table 1) include the beraprost study group trial (9), which failed to show a statistically significant improvement in the six-minute-walk distance after a year. This drug has not been submitted for approval to the FDA in the United States, but is commercially available in Japan. The trial included similar patients to those enrolled in the subcutaneous treprostinil trial, except that it excluded NYHA class IV patients as well as patients who had taken other PAH drugs within a month. Another RCT that failed to show statistically significant improvement in the main outcome variable was STRIDE 1 (Sitaxsentan to Relieve Impaired Exercise in Pulmonary Hypertension) for sitaxsentan (10), which used the change in maximal O2 uptake (MvO2) as determined by cardiopulmonary exercise testing instead of the six-minute-walk distance. The inclusion criteria reflected this choice, requiring an initial MvO2 between 25 and 75% of predicted. Even though the six-minute-walk distance significantly improved in this trial, the drug has not yet been approved by the FDA (although it has been approved in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), partly because of failure to achieve a statistically significant benefit in the major outcome variable. The SUPER 1 (Sildenafil Use in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension) trial (11) had inclusion criteria similar to the subcutane-

606 TABLE 2. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION CLASSIFICATION OF PULMONARY HYPERTENSION Group 1. Pulmonary arterial hypertension d Idiopathic PAH d Familial PAH d Related to: – Connective tissue diseases – HIV – Portal hypertension – Anorexigens – Congenital heart diseases d Primary pulmonary hypertension of the newborn d PAH with venule/capillary involvement (pulmonary venoocclusive disease) d Hemoglobinopathies, glycogen storage disorders, Gaucher’s d Hereditary hemorrhagic telangectasia (Osler-Weber-Rendu) Group 2. Pulmonary hypertension with left heart disease d Atrial or ventricular dysfunction (systolic or diastolic) d Valvular dysfunction Group 3. Pulmonary hypertension associated with hypoxemia d Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease d Interstitial lung disease d Sleep-disordered breathing d Chronic exposure to high altitude Group 4. Pulmonary hypertension due to chronic thrombotic and/or embolic disease d Obstruction of proximal pulmonary artery by thromboembolism d Obstruction of distal pulmonary artery by thromboembolism d Nonthrombotic pulmonary embolism Group 5. Miscellaneous d Sarcoidosis, histiocytosis X, extrinsic compression of the pulmonary arteries Definition of abbreviations: PAH 5 pulmonary arterial hypertension.

ous treprostinil and BREATHE 1 trials, except that patients with any NYHA functional class disease were eligible and those with congenital heart disease had to have underwent surgical repair at least 5 years previously. The RCT for ambrisentan (12), an oral endothelin receptor antagonist that was approved by the FDA in June 2007, used eligibility criteria similar to those of the subcutaneous treprostinil trial except that it excluded congenital heart disease and included patients with HIV. Other, more recent trials include those that have added new therapies to existing ones, termed ‘‘add on’’ trials (Table 1). The STEP (Iloprost Inhalation Solution Safety and Pilot Efficacy Trial in Combination with Bosentan for Evaluation in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension) trial (13) added inhaled iloprost in patients who had received bosentan for at least 4 months. Inclusions and exclusions were similar to previous trials, except that patients had to have NYHA class III or IV disease and the upper limit for the six-minute-walk distance was slightly less (425 m) in an attempt to increase the likelihood of detecting a significant increase. The PACES trial (14) added sildenafil, 80 mg three times daily, to the regimen in patients who had been receiving intravenous epoprostenol for at least 3 months. Inclusion criteria were otherwise similar to those of most previous trials, except that patients with a history of anorexigen use and those with NYHA class II disease were specifically included. More recently, the EARLY (Endothelin Antagonist Trial in Mildly Symptomatic PAH Patients) trial (15) of bosentan limited inclusion to those with NYHA class II disease. Because the patients were less ill, a six-minute-walk distance up to 500 m or 80% of predicted was permissible as long as the exertional Borg score was greater than 2. To eliminate patients with other underlying lung pathologies, patients with a total lung capacity of less than 80% of predicted values were excluded. In summary, the RCTs on current PAH drugs have been fairly consistent in targeting WHO group 1 patients; although


2008

the predominant subgroups represented are those with idiopathic PAH or PAH associated with either connective tissue disease or congenital heart disease. The studies have included patients with a broad range of ages, although most have excluded the very elderly and small children. Most have also excluded patients taking other PAH drugs. Because the sixminute-walk distance has been the most commonly used major outcome variable, most studies have set limits on admissible walk distances. More recently, the availability of effective PAH pharmacotherapies has led to the exclusion of NYHA class IV patients because of the ethical concern that these patients could be harmed by being enrolled in a placebo group. This has been accompanied by a trend to enroll less ill patients by limiting enrollment to patients with NYHA class II or III disease and with slightly greater six-minute-walk distances than in earlier trials. More recent trials have also begun adding therapy to preexisting PAH therapies partly to see if benefit can be enhanced by combination therapy and partly because this addresses some of the ethical concerns about placebo-controlled trials.

DEMOGRAPHICS OF PATIENTS IN PAH TRAILS Although the inclusion and exclusion criteria determine the target population of a clinical study, ultimately the characteristics of patients actually enrolled into the study determine the relevant patient population. In the epoprostenol trial (5), patients were mainly women of late child-bearing age, 25% had NYHA class IV disease, and their six-minute-walk distance was severely limited (Table 3). Among the other earlier trials, females continued to predominate, but age increased slightly and six-minutewalk distance was slightly longer, reflecting the inclusion of NYHA class II patients in some of these trials (6). The subsequent studies also began including patients with connective tissue and congenital heart disease, broadening enrollment criteria. Despite the greater baseline six-minute-walk distance in the AIR trial compared with the epoprostenol trial, the proportion of NYHA class IV patients was actually greater in the AIR trial (41 vs. 28%). This may reflect the well-known inaccuracies inherent in both parameters (16) rather than any actual baseline difference between the groups. The more recent studies show substantial differences in demographics compared with the earlier studies (Table 3). Ages and diagnoses are similar and female predominance persists, but the distribution of NYHA class is quite different, with many more class II patients and longer six-minute-walk distances. Also, these trials enrolled fewer NYHA class IV patients, reflecting the ethical concern about enrolling sicker patients into placebo-controlled trials. The beraprost and STRIDE 1 trials had considerably longer baseline six-minute-walk distances than the others, consistent with the lack of upper limits for six-minute-walk distance among the inclusion criteria. Among the add-on studies, the STEP trial targeted NYHA class III and IV patients, but enrolled almost exclusively class III patients (Table 3). The PACES trial targeted patients of any NYHA functional class using intravenous epoprostenol, but similarly enrolled mainly patients with class III disease. The EARLY trial enrolled almost exclusively NYHA class II patients, consistent with the inclusion criteria. Six-minute-walk distances reflected these NYHA functional class distributions, with the STEP trial matching almost exactly the baseline sixminute-walk distance of BREATHE 1, which also enrolled mainly class III patients. The baseline six-minute-walk distance of the STEP trial was closer to those of the SUPER 1 and ARIES 1 trials, which had similar NYHA class distributions, and that of the EARLY trial was longer, consistent with its inclusion of only class II patients.


607

TABLE 3. BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTS TREATED WITH PLACEBO IN RELEVANT PULMONARY ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION TRIALS Study (Reference No.)

Mean Age, yr (% Female)

PH Type

Epoprostenol (5) 40 placebo Treprostinil, subcutaneous (6) 236 placebo

40 (70)

PPH*

45 (85)

Bosentan (7) 69 placebo Iloprost (8) 102 placebo

47 (78)

Beraprost (9) 56 placebo

42 (84)

Sitaxsentan (10) 60 placebo

48 (78)

Sildenafil (11) 70 placebo

49 (81)

Ambrisentan (12) 132 placebo

50 (80)

Iloprost 1 bosentan (13) 33 placebo

49 (79)

IPAH, 58% CTD, 17% CHD, 25% IPAH, 70% CTD, 30% IPAH, 50% CTD, 22% CTEPH, 23% Anorex, 5% IPAH, 70% CTD, 11% CHD, 20% IPAH, 62% CTD, 15% CHD, 23% IPAH, 60% CTD, 17% CHD, 9% Other, 14% IPAH, 64% CTD, 24% Anorex, 4% HIV, 8% IPAH, 61% APAH, 39%

Sildenafil 1 epoprostenol (14)

48 (80)

IPAH, 79% CTD, 17% Other, 4%

Bosentan 1 sildenafil (15) 92 placebo

44 (63)

IPAH, 63% CTD, 17% CHD, 17% HIV, 2%

53 (67)

NYHA Class (% Total Subjects)

6MWD (m)

III, 73% IV, 28% II, 14% III, 82% IV, 8% III, 94% IV, 6% III, 58% IV, 42%

316 6 18 326 6 5

344 6 76 315 6 96

II, 50% III, 50%

445 6 10

II, 37% III, 60% IV, 3% I, 1% II, 46% III, 49% IV, 4% II, 38% III, 55% IV, 7%

413 6 105

II, 3% III, 91% IV, 6% I, 1% II, 26% III, 66% IV, 7% II, 100%

344 6 79

341 6 73

340 6 73

344 6 75

431 6 91

Definition of abbreviations: anorex 5 anorexigen-associated PAH; APAH 5 associated pulmonary arterial hypertension; CHD 5 congenital heart disease–associated PAH; CTD 5 collagen vascular disease–associated PAH; CTEPH 5 chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension; HIV 5 HIV associated PAH; IPAH 5 idiopathic PAH; NYHA 5 New York Heart Association; PAH 5 pulmonary arterial hypertension; PH 5 pulmonary hypertension; PPH 5 primary pulmonary hypertension; 6MWD 5 six-minute-walk distance.

Ethnicity distribution was not reported in the epoprostenol or AIR trials, but in the others African Americans constituted 2 to 7%, Hispanics 5 to 11%, and Asian Americans 2 to 8% of patients. In the STEP trial, 3% of the patients were Native Americans. Although there are no published prevalence figures for PAH by race, a recent single-center report found that 15% of patients with PAH were African American (17). Coupled with the observation that ethnicity/race may influence access to tertiary medical care (18, 19) (and thus enrollment into clinical trials), these data raise the possibility that participants in PAH clinical trials may not reflect the ethnicity of the broader PAH population in the United States (or elsewhere). Thus, as would be anticipated, demographics of patients enrolled into RCTs for PAH reflect the inclusion/exclusion criteria, but there are clear trends for enrolling less ill patients, with more NYHA class II and fewer class IV patients. This in part reflects the ethical concern that enrolling patients into placebo-controlled trials exposes them to potential harm should they end up in the placebo group, and the concern is greater with sicker patients. This also reveals a desire to determine whether pharmacotherapies can favorably affect the natural history of the disease if started in mildly affected patients. Minorities have been underrepresented in PAH trials thus far, perhaps because of the constitution of the populations at the participating centers.

BASELINE HEMODYNAMICS OF ENROLLEES IN RCTs FOR PAH Baseline pulmonary hemodynamics afford another way to characterize patients entering PAH trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of hemodynamic variables limit comparisons between trials. Some studies report cardiac output and PVR and others report CI and PVR index (PVRI). In addition, fewer patients are undergoing hemodynamic evaluations at the time of enrollment because recent trials have focused on functional, not hemodynamic, end points. In the intravenous epoprostenol trial, enrolled patients had severe hemodynamic derangement, with marked elevation of right atrial (RA) and Ppa, a relatively low CI and severe elevation of PVR (Table 4). The subsequent trials enrolled patients with milder hemodynamic abnormalities. Compared with the epoprostenol trial, RA and pulmonary arterial pressures were slightly lower and CI was slightly higher in both the treprostinil and bosentan trials, and in the BREATHE1 trial PVR was lower. The AIR trial did not report RA pressure and provided cardiac output rather than CI, but pulmonary arterial pressure and PVR elevations were similar to those in the BREATHE 1 trial. The similarities between these measures as well as in the sixminute-walk distance in the AIR and BREATHE 1 trials are remarkable considering that NYHA class IV patients constituted

608


TABLE 4. BASELINE HEMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF PARTICIPANTS IN RELEVANT PULMONARY ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION CLINICAL TRIALS IN THE PLACEBO ARM Trial (Reference No.)

mRA

Ppa

PAOP

CI or CO

PVR or PVRI

Epoprostenol (5) Treprostinil (6) Bosentan (7) Iloprost (8) Beraprost (9) Sitaxsentan (10) Sildenafil (11) Ambrisentan (12) Bosentan 1 iloprost (13) Sildenafil 1 epoprostenol (14) Bosentan 1 sildenafil (15)

12 10 9 8 9 8 9 8 NA NA 8

59 60 53 54 55 52 56 51 52 52 52

10 9 9 8 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA

2.0 2.3 2.4 3.8† 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.4 4.6† 2.8 2.7

1,280 2,000* 880 1,041 1,680* 911 1,051 920 783 800 805

Definition of abbreviations: CI 5 cardiac index (L/min/m2); CO 5 cardiac output (L/min); mRA 5 mean right atrial pressure (mm Hg); NA 5 data not available; PAOP 5 pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure (mm Hg); Ppa 5 mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mm Hg); PVR 5 pulmonary vascular resistance (dyne s cm25); PVRI 5 pulmonary vascular resistance index (dyne s21 cm25). Values are mean. * Refers to PVRI values. † Refers to CO values.

41 and 10% of the enrollees in these trials, respectively. This raises questions about differences in the criteria used to determine NYHA functional class between the two trials, as well as subjectivity of assessment by both the investigators and subjects. In the more recent trials (Table 4), Ppa is in the same range as most of the earlier trials, but mean RA pressure has fallen to the upper normal range, and PVR values are slightly lower than on the earlier trials; these trends are consistent with the higher

2008

proportion of NYHA class II patients in these trials. In the STEP, PACES, and EARLY trials, baseline Ppa levels are still in the severe range, RA pressures are inconsistently reported, cardiac indices are in the normal range, and PVR values are again slightly lower than in earlier trials. These trends indicate less severe derangement of pulmonary hemodynamics in more recent trials than in earlier ones.

STABILITY OF THE CONTROL GROUP The stability over time of patients entering PAH RCTs is another important characteristic. Although stability has not been used as an inclusion criterion, one would expect that, as more NYHA class II patients enter trials, less deterioration over time would occur among control subjects. Also, investigators are more likely to place patients with a history of recent deterioration on approved, effective therapies than enroll them in RCTs, creating a bias toward enrolling more stable patients. This is borne out in Table 3, which shows the change in baseline six-minute-walk distance in the placebo group over the randomized portion of the trial. As can be seen, the placebo groups of earlier trials manifested greater deteriorations in six-minutewalk distance than more recent ones. Patients in the STEP and PACES trials were receiving background therapy, which may offer another explanation for their greater stability.

TRENDS OVER TIME Figure 2 shows trends in enrollee characteristics over time. Age has been trending upward and the percentage of NYHA class II participants has been increasing. Six-minute-walk distances have increased on average, although this may also be influenced by restrictions, or lack thereof, on permissible walk distances for

Figure 2. Trends in the clinical and demographic characteristics of placebo subjects in the pulmonary arterial hypertension trials, 1996 to present. Depicted are the mean values of pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), age, six-minute-walk distance, (6MWD), and percentage of participants with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II disease for the placebo arms of the 11 pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials discussed in this article. Linear regression lines are depicted as dashed lines.


inclusion. Pulmonary hemodynamic derangements are becoming less severe, as mean RA pressure, Ppa, and PVR have been dropping. Once again, these trends undoubtedly reflect investigators’ tendency to place sicker patients on known, effective therapies rather than in placebo-controlled RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS Over the past dozen years, PAH clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of six medications that have gained FDA approval, and many patients with PAH are reaping the benefits with improved functional capacity and slowing of disease progression. But what patients get into the trials and to whom do the results apply? Enrollees in PAH clinical trials have been mainly white, with minorities being underrepresented. They have severe functional and pulmonary hemodynamic derangements, but these have been gradually getting milder over time. Earlier trials excluded patients receiving other approved PAH therapies, but more recent trials have included them and have added the new therapy to their regimen. Control groups are becoming progressively more stable. These observations are important in applying results to the larger population of individuals with pulmonary hypertension. First, even though enrollees have been confined largely to those in WHO group 1, there is considerable heterogeneity among enrollees, and one cannot assume that global efficacy from these trials necessarily applies to each subgroup of enrolled patients. Also, we should be cautious about extrapolating the results to patients in other WHO groups, even though PAH therapies are widely being given to such patients. Finally, because enrollment is confined to increasingly stable patients, study designers must be wary of relying too much on the rate of clinical worsening as a primary end point, considering that statistical significance for this end point depends on the number of events in the control group. With more healthy control subjects, studies will have to be larger and longer to have sufficient statistical power. The pioneering studies discussed above have provided much valuable data and have served as the basis for approval for current PAH therapies, but future clinical trials must take into consideration some of the methodologic limitations. All trials should report recruitment fractions. Designers of trials should strive for consistency in describing diagnostic categories and reporting of NYHA class as well as hemodynamic variables. Efforts should be made to enroll as representative a population as possible, including diverse ethnic groups. As novel biomarkers and alternative end points are identified, these should be incorporated into trials, and can be used to better characterize the study population. Given the logistical challenges inherent in the performance of clinical trials, especially for rare diseases, investigators and clinicians need to pool their patient resources, perhaps in the form of clinical consortia or networks. Conflict of Interest Statement: N.S.H. has participated as a speaker in scientific meetings or courses organized and financed by various pharmaceutical companies (Gilead, $2,000 in 2007; United Therapeutics, $3,000 in 2005–2007). He has received honoraria for participating in advisory boards (Actelion, $2,000 in 2007; Gilead, $2,000 in 2007 and $2,000 in 2008; United Therapeutics, $2,500 in 2007). He has received research grants for participating in multicenter clinical trials ($40,000 from Actelion, $100,000 from Gilead, $100,000 from United Therapeutics, $120,000 from Pfizer, $40,000 from Lilly-Icos). I.R.P. has participated as a speaker in scientific meetings or courses organized and financed by various pharmaceutical companies between 2005 and 2008 (Actelion, $3,000; Gilead, $5,000; United Therapeutics, $3,000). She has received honoraria for participating in advisory boards (from Actelion, $1,500 in 2006 and $1,500 in 2007; from Gilead, $2,000 in 2007 and $2,000 in 2008; from United Therapeutics, $1,500 in 2006 and $1,500 in 2007). She has received a research grant for multicenter clinical trials from Actelion ($20,000). K.E.R. does not have a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of this manuscript.

609 References 1. Frost AE, Langleben D, Oudiz R, Hill N, Horn E, McLaughlin V, Robbins IM, Shapiro S, Tapson VF, Zwicke D, DeMarco T, et al. The 6-min walk test (6MW) as an efficacy endpoint in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials: demonstration of a ceiling effect. Vascul Pharmacol 2005;43:36–39. 2. Gross CP, Mallory R, Heiat A, Krumholz HM. Reporting the recruitment process in clinical trials: who are these patients and how did they get there? Ann Intern Med 2002;137:10–16. 3. Taylor RW, Zimmerman JL, Dellinger RP, Straube RC, Criner GJ, Davis K Jr, Kelly KM, Smith TC, Small RJ; Inhaled Nitric Oxide in ARDS Study Group. Low-dose inhaled nitric oxide in patients with acute lung injury: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291: 1603–1609. 4. D’Alonzo GE, Barst RJ, Ayres SM, Bergofsky EH, Brundage BH, Detre KM, Fishman AP, Goldring RM, Groves BM, Kernis JT, et al. Survival in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension: results from a national prospective registry. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:343–349. 5. Barst RJ, Rubin LJ, Long WA, McGoon MD, Rich S, Badesch DB, Groves BM, Tapson VF, Bourge RC, Brundage BH, et al. A comparison of continuous intravenous epoprostenol (prostacyclin) with conventional therapy for primary pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med 1996;334:296–302. 6. Simonneau G, Barst RJ, Galie` N, Naeije R, Rich S, Bourge RC, Keogh A, Oudiz R, Frost A, Blackburn SD, et al. Continuous subcutaneous infusion of treprostinil, a prostacyclin analogue, in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a double-blind, randomized, placebocontrolled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:800–804. 7. Rubin LJ, Badesch DB, Barst RJ, Galie N, Black CM, Keogh A, Pulido T, Frost A, Roux S, Leconte I, et al. Bosentan therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. N Engl J Med 2002;346:896–903. 8. Olschewski H, Simonneau G, Galie N, Higenbottam T, Naeije R, Rubin LJ, Nikkho S, Speich R, Hoeper MM, Behr J, et al. Inhaled iloprost for severe pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med 2002;347:322–329. 9. Barst RJ, McGoon M, McLaughlin V, Tapson V, Rich S, Rubin L, Wasserman K, Oudiz R, Shapiro S, Robbins IM, et al. Beraprost therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:2119–2125. 10. Barst RJ, Langleben D, Frost A, Horn EM, Oudiz R, Shapiro S, McLaughlin V, Hill N, Tapson VF, Robbins IM, et al. Sitaxsentan therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;169:441–447. 11. Galie` N, Ghofrani HA, Torbicki A, Barst RJ, Rubin LJ, Badesch D, Fleming T, Parpia T, Burgess G, Branzi A, et al. Sildenafil citrate therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2148–2157. 12. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Medical review of application #22–081: Ambrisentan. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; 2007. 13. McLaughlin VV, Oudiz RJ, Frost A, Tapson VF, Murali S, Channick RN, Badesch DB, Barst RJ, Hsu HH, Rubin LJ. Randomized study of adding inhaled iloprost to existing bosentan in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;174:1257– 1263. 14. Simonneau G, Rubin LJ, Galie N, Barst RJ, Fleming T, Burgess G, Collings L, Cossons N, Badesch DB. Safety and efficacy of sildenafilepoprostenol combination therapy in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175:A300. 15. EARLY: first functional class II population study emphasizes need to diagnose and treat PAH early [media release]. Allschwil, Switzerland: Actelion Pharmaceuticals; 2007. 16. Rich S. The current treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: time to redefine success. Chest 2006;130:1198–1202. 17. Shah SJ, Thenappan T, Rich S, Tian L, Archer SL, Gomberg-Maitland M. Association of serum creatinine with abnormal hemodynamics and mortality in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Circulation 2008;117: 2475–2483. 18. Lederer DJ, Caplan-Shaw CE, O’Shea MK, Wilt JS, Basner RC, Bartels MN, Sonett JR, Arcasoy SM, Kawut SM. Racial and ethnic disparities in survival in lung transplant candidates with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Transplant 2006;6:398–403. 19. Kelley E, Moy E, Stryer D, Burstin H, Clancy C. The national healthcare quality and disparities reports: an overview. Med Care 2005;43(3 Suppl): I3–I8. 20. Simonneau G, Galie` N, Rubin LJ, Langleben D, Seeger W, Domenighetti G, Gibbs S, Lebrec D, Beghetti M, et al. Clinical classification of pulmonary hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43(12 Suppl S):5S–12S.