Rationale: Studies suggest that patients with connective tissue disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (CTD-PAH) have a poorer treatment response to therapies for PAH compared with patients with idiopathic PAH (IPAH), but individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been underpowered to examine differences within these subgroups.Objectives: To compare the effect of therapy for PAH in CTD-PAH versus IPAH.Methods: We obtained individual participant data from phase III placebo-controlled RCTs of therapies for PAH submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for drug approval. A treatment-bydiagnosis interaction term evaluated differences in treatment response between CTD-PAH and IPAH. Outcomes included change in 6-minute-walk distance (Δ6MWD) from baseline to 12 weeks, clinical worsening, and all-cause mortality.Measurements and Main Results: The study sample included 827 participants with CTD-PAH and 1,935 with IPAH from 11 RCTs. Patients with CTD-PAH had less improvement in 6MWD when assigned to active treatment versus placebo compared with patients with IPAH (difference in treatment effect on Δ6MWD in CTD-PAH vs. IPAH, 217.3 m; 90% confidence interval, 231.3 to 23.3; P for interaction = 0.043). Treatment was less effective in reducing the occurrence of clinical worsening in CTD-PAH versus IPAH (P for interaction = 0.012), but there was no difference in the placebo-adjusted effect of treatment on mortality (P for interaction = 0.65).Conclusions: Treatment for PAH was less effective in CTD-PAH compared with IPAH in terms of increasing 6MWD and preventing clinical worsening. The heterogeneity of treatment response supports the need for identifying therapies that are more effective for CTD-PAH.

Purpose To develop and validate case-finding algorithms for granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener’s, GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss, EGPA). Methods 250 patients per disease were randomly selected from 2 large healthcare systems using the International Classification of Diseases version 9 (ICD9) codes for GPA/EGPA (446.4) and MPA (446.0). 16 case-finding algorithms were constructed using a combination of ICD9 code, encounter type (inpatient or outpatient), physician specialty, use of immunosuppressive medications, and the anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) type. Algorithms with the highest average positive predictive value (PPV) were validated in a third healthcare system. Results An algorithm excluding patients with eosinophilia or asthma and including the encounter type and physician specialty had the highest PPV for GPA (92.4%). An algorithm including patients with eosinophilia and asthma and the physician specialty had the highest PPV for EGPA (100%). An algorithm including patients with one of the following diagnoses: alveolar hemorrhage, interstitial lung disease, glomerulonephritis, acute or chronic kidney disease, the encounter type, physician specialty, and immunosuppressive medications had the highest PPV for MPA (76.2%). When validated in a third healthcare system, these algorithms had high PPV (85.9% for GPA, 85.7% for EGPA, and 61.5% for MPA). Adding the ANCA type increased the PPV to 94.4%, 100%, and 81.2% for GPA, EGPA, and MPA respectively. Conclusion Case-finding algorithms accurately identify patients with GPA, EGPA, and MPA in administrative databases. These algorithms can be used to assemble population-based cohorts and facilitate future research in epidemiology, drug safety, and comparative effectiveness.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract