Real-World Management of Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Insights from EXPOSURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Further insights into real-world management and outcomes of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) are needed. This interim analysis of the ongoing, multicentre, prospective EXPOSURE (EUPAS19085) observational study describes characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with PAH initiating a new PAH-specific therapy in Europe/Canada. All analyses were descriptive. In total, 1944 patients with follow-up information were included; the majority were female, with World Health Organization functional class II/III symptoms and with idiopathic PAH or connective tissue disease-associated PAH. Most incident patients (N = 1100; diagnosed for ≤ 6 months) initiated treatment as monotherapy (48%) or double therapy (43%). Of those initiating monotherapy, 38% (199/530) escalated to double therapy (median [Q1, Q3] time to escalation 3.4 [1.9, 6.6] months), and of those initiating double therapy, 17% (78/457) escalated to triple therapy (median [Q1, Q3] time to escalation 7.0 [3.4, 12.7] months) during the observation period (median [Q1, Q3]: 17.0 [7.5, 29.9] months). The majority of the 834 prevalent patients (diagnosed > 6 months) entered the study on initiation of combination therapy and most did not change treatment regimen during the observation period (median [Q1, Q3]: 19.6 [10.2, 32.2] months). One-year survival was 88% for incident patients and 90% for prevalent patients. Results from EXPOSURE suggest a shift towards combination therapy and the alignment of real-world treatment patterns with current guideline recommendations. While survival estimates are encouraging, the extent of monotherapy use at treatment initiation and follow-up highlight an opportunity for further improvements through optimisation of treatment strategies in line with current guidelines. A graphical abstract is also available with this article. EUPAS19085. Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive disease. Clinical guidelines recommend that most patients start treatment with a combination of different PAH medications. While there is no cure for PAH, these medications help to control symptoms and slow disease worsening. To understand treatments currently used in clinical practice, we analysed data from EXPOSURE (EUPAS19085), an ongoing study collecting information from patients starting a new PAH medication in Europe and Canada. Most patients in the study were female, with World Health Organization functional class II/III symptoms, and idiopathic (unknown cause) PAH or PAH associated with connective tissue disorders. Among 1100 patients who were ‘recently diagnosed’ (diagnosed with PAH in the past 6 months), 88% were alive after 1 year. We found that 48% started treatment with one PAH medication, and 38% of those patients had a second medication prescribed within a median period of 3 months. Among the 457 ‘recently diagnosed’ patients treated with two PAH medications when they entered the study, 17% had a third medication prescribed within a median period of 7 months. Among 834 patients with ‘established PAH’ (diagnosed more than 6 months ago), 90% were alive after 1 year. Most entered the study when they started a third medication and did not have further changes in treatment. Our findings show that patients with PAH are often treated with one medication in clinical practice as well as a combination of medications. While survival rates are encouraging, the extent to which one PAH medication is used suggests there is room for treatment improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".