Brain natriuretic peptide

Background: In pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), there are no data comparing initial triple oral therapy with initial double oral therapy. Objectives: TRITON (The Efficacy and Safety of Initial Triple Versus Initial Dual Oral Combination Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; NCT02558231), a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase 3b study, evaluated initial triple (macitentan, tadalafil, and selexipag) versus initial double (macitentan, tadalafil, and placebo) oral therapy in newly diagnosed, treatment-naive patients with PAH. Methods: Efficacy was assessed until the last patient randomized completed week 26 (end of main observation period). The primary endpoint was change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at week 26. Results: Patients were assigned to initial triple (n = 123) or initial double therapy (n = 124). At week 26, both treatment strategies reduced PVR compared with baseline (by 54% and 52%), with no significant difference between groups (ratio of geometric means: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.86-1.07; P = 0.42). Six-minute walk distance and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide improved by week 26, with no difference between groups. Risk for disease progression (to end of main observation period) was reduced with initial triple versus initial double therapy (hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-1.09). Most common adverse events with initial triple therapy included headache, diarrhea, and nausea. By the end of the main observation period, 2 patients in the initial triple and 9 in the initial double therapy groups had died. Conclusions: In patients with newly diagnosed PAH, both treatment strategies markedly reduced PVR by week 26, with no significant difference between groups (primary endpoint not met). Exploratory analyses suggested a possible signal for improved long-term outcomes with initial triple versus initial double oral therapy.

At least one-half of the growing heart failure population consists of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The limited therapeutic options, the complexity of the syndrome, and many related comorbidities emphasize the need for adequate experimental animal models to study the etiology of HFpEF, as well as its comorbidities and pathophysiological changes. The strengths and weaknesses of available animal models have been reviewed extensively with the general consensus that a "1-size-fits-all" model does not exist, because no uniform HFpEF patient exists. In fact, HFpEF patients have been categorized into HFpEF phenogroups based on comorbidities and symptoms. In this review, we therefore study which animal model is best suited to study the different phenogroups-to improve model selection and refinement of animal research. Based on the published data, we extrapolated human HFpEF phenogroups into 3 animal phenogroups (containing small and large animals) based on reports and definitions of the authors: animal models with high (cardiac) age (phenogroup aging); animal models focusing on hypertension and kidney dysfunction (phenogroup hypertension/kidney failure); and models with hypertension, obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (phenogroup cardiometabolic syndrome). We subsequently evaluated characteristics of HFpEF, such as left ventricular diastolic dysfunction parameters, systemic inflammation, cardiac fibrosis, and sex-specificity in the different models. Finally, we scored these parameters concluded how to best apply these models. Based on our findings, we propose an easy-to-use classification for future animal research based on clinical phenogroups of interest.

Background: Treatment options for inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) remain limited. Selexipag, an oral selective IP prostacyclin receptor agonist approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension, is a potential treatment option for CTEPH. Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 78 Japanese patients with inoperable CTEPH or persistent/recurrent pulmonary hypertension after pulmonary endarterectomy and/or balloon pulmonary angioplasty were randomly assigned to receive placebo or selexipag. The primary end-point was the change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) from baseline to week 20. Secondary end-points were changes in other haemodynamic parameters: 6-min walk distance (6MWD), Borg dyspnoea scale score, World Health Organization (WHO) functional class, EuroQol five-dimension five-level tool and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Results: The change in PVR was -98.2±111.3 dyn·s·cm-5 and -4.6±163.6 dyn·s·cm-5 in the selexipag and placebo groups, respectively (mean difference -93.5 dyn·s·cm-5; 95% CI -156.8 to -30.3; p=0.006). The changes in cardiac index (p<0.001) and Borg dyspnoea scale score (p=0.036) were also significantly improved over placebo. 6MWD and WHO functional class were not significantly improved. The common adverse events in the selexipag group corresponded to those generally observed following administration of a prostacyclin analogue. Conclusion: Selexipag significantly improved PVR and other haemodynamic variables in patients with CTEPH, although exercise capacity remained unchanged. Further large-scale investigation is necessary to prove the role of selexipag in CTEPH.