Mitchell S Buckley, Andrew J Berry, Nadine H Kazem, Shardool A Patel, Paul A Librodo
{"title":"Clinical utility of treprostinil in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: an evidence-based review.","authors":"Mitchell S Buckley, Andrew J Berry, Nadine H Kazem, Shardool A Patel, Paul A Librodo","doi":"10.2147/CE.S50607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) remains a progressive disease without a cure, despite the development of several treatment options over the past several decades. Its management strategy consists of the endothelin receptor antagonists (ambrisentan, bosentan, macitentan), phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil), and prostacyclin analogs (epoprostenol, treprostinil, iloprost). Treprostinil, a stable prostacyclin analog, displays vasodilatory effects in the pulmonary vasculature, as well as antiplatelet aggregation properties. Clinical practice guidelines recommend oral endothelin receptor antagonist or phosphodiesterase inhibitor therapy in mild to moderate PAH. Epoprostenol is specifically suggested as first-line therapy in moderate to severe PAH patients (ie, World Health Organization/New York Heart Association functional class III-IV). However, treprostinil may be an alternative option in these severe PAH patients. The longer half-life and stability at room temperature with treprostinil may be associated with lower risk of pulmonary hemodynamic worsening as a result of abrupt infusion discontinuation and less frequent drug preparation. These characteristics make treprostinil an attractive alternative to continuous infusion of epoprostenol, due to convenience and patient safety. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous infusion of treprostinil as well as the inhaled and oral routes of administration in PAH. </p>","PeriodicalId":10764,"journal":{"name":"Core Evidence","volume":"9 ","pages":"71-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/CE.S50607","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Core Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CE.S50607","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
Abstract
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) remains a progressive disease without a cure, despite the development of several treatment options over the past several decades. Its management strategy consists of the endothelin receptor antagonists (ambrisentan, bosentan, macitentan), phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil), and prostacyclin analogs (epoprostenol, treprostinil, iloprost). Treprostinil, a stable prostacyclin analog, displays vasodilatory effects in the pulmonary vasculature, as well as antiplatelet aggregation properties. Clinical practice guidelines recommend oral endothelin receptor antagonist or phosphodiesterase inhibitor therapy in mild to moderate PAH. Epoprostenol is specifically suggested as first-line therapy in moderate to severe PAH patients (ie, World Health Organization/New York Heart Association functional class III-IV). However, treprostinil may be an alternative option in these severe PAH patients. The longer half-life and stability at room temperature with treprostinil may be associated with lower risk of pulmonary hemodynamic worsening as a result of abrupt infusion discontinuation and less frequent drug preparation. These characteristics make treprostinil an attractive alternative to continuous infusion of epoprostenol, due to convenience and patient safety. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous infusion of treprostinil as well as the inhaled and oral routes of administration in PAH.
期刊介绍:
Core Evidence evaluates the evidence underlying the potential place in therapy of drugs throughout their development lifecycle from preclinical to postlaunch. The focus of each review is to evaluate the case for a new drug or class in outcome terms in specific indications and patient groups The emerging evidence on new drugs is reviewed at key stages of development and evaluated against unmet needs