Results in Treatment-naïve and Pretreated PAH 
Patients from the PATENT-1 Study
 

 

    PATENT-1 Study Design

    PIVOTAL TRIAL IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH PAH (WHO GROUP 1)1

    Randomized, double-blind, multinational, placebo-controlled, 12-week, phase 3 study

    Graphic of study design with 443 PAH patients of which 126 patients were on placebo, 254 patients were on up to 2.5mg and 63 patients exploratory arm up to 1.5mg, given 3 times daily

    Primary endpoint1

    • Change in 6MWD from baseline to Week 12

    Baseline characteristics1

    • Mean age: 51 years (approximately 80% female)
    • PAH etiologies: idiopathic (61%), associated with connective tissue disease (25%), congenital heart disease (8%), portal hypertension (3%), familial (2%), or anorexigen or amphetamine use (1%)
    • Mean 6MWD was 363 m
    • Concomitant medications: oral anticoagulants, diuretics, digitalis, calcium channel blockers, and oxygen were allowed
    • Patient population: 50% treatment naïve, 44% pretreated with an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA), and 6% pretreated with a prostacyclin analog (PCA)
    • The majority of patients had WHO FC II (42%) or III (54%) at baseline
    • Patients with systolic blood pressure <95 mm Hg were excluded

    6MWD = 6-minute walk distance; m = meters; mPAP = mean pulmonary arterial pressure; PAH = pulmonary arterial hypertension; PATENT-1 = Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Soluble Guanylate Cyclase-Stimulator Trial; PVR = pulmonary vascular resistance; WHO FC = World Health Organization Functional Class.

    PATENT-1 Results

    IMPROVEMENT IN 6MWD WAS OBSERVED AT 2 WEEKS AND CONTINUED THROUGH 12 WEEKS1

    SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 6MWD AT WEEK 12

    Graph of mean change from baseline to 6MWD showcasing 36m improvement in 6MWD at week 12

    Adempas can be used as monotherapy or in combination

    • In WHO FC II and III
    • As monotherapy
    • In combination with endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs)
    • In combination with prostacyclin analogs (PCAs)

    50% MORE PATIENTS IMPROVED WHO FC ON ADEMPAS VS PLACEBO

    CHANGE IN WHO FC IN THE 12-WEEK PATENT-1 STUDY

    Graph of change in WHO FC on Adempas vs Placebo patients in the 12-week PATENT-1 study

    ITT = intention-to-treat; WHO FC = World Health Organization Functional Class.

    ADEMPAS IMPROVED PVR AND NT-proBNP AT WEEK 12*

    Graph of the change in hemodynamic parameters PVR and NT-proBNP at week 12

    Right heart catheterization was performed at the beginning and end of the study period in 339 patients.

    *Placebo-adjusted mean change from baseline.

    NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

    CLINICAL WORSENING EVENTS UP TO 12 WEEKS

    Graphic comparing worsening events for Adempas vs Placebo up to week 12

    *Time to clinical worsening was a combined endpoint defined as death (all-cause mortality), heart/lung transplantation, atrial septostomy, hospitalization due to persistent worsening of PH, start of new PAH-specific treatment, persistent decrease in 6MWD, and persistent worsening of WHO Functional Class.
    Patients may have had more than one event of clinical worsening.

    PATENT-1 Study Design

    PIVOTAL TRIAL IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH PAH (WHO GROUP 1)1,2

    Randomized, double-blind, multinational, placebo-controlled, 12-week phase 3 study

    Graphic of study design for treatment-naïve and pretreated subgroups

    PATENT-1 primary endpoint

    • Change in 6MWD from baseline to Week 12

    Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline to Week 12 in2:

    • WHO FC
    • Time to clinical worsening event
    • PVR and NT-proBNP

    Efficacy data were only measured for the Adempas 2.5 mg and placebo arms.

    PATENT-1 Baseline Patient Characteristics3

    Table of patient characteristics comparing between overall population, treatment-naïve and pretreated subgroups

    *Data may not add up to 100% owing to rounding.

    n=59.

    PATENT-1 Results

    6MWD AT WEEK 12 BASED ON PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS1

    Mean Treatment Difference in Change From Baseline to Week 12* in 6MWD by Prespecified Subgroups

    Graphic of mean treatment difference in change from baseline to week 12 in 6MWD by prespecified subgroups

    *Week 12/last observation until Week 12.

    PATENT-1 (n=443): Improvement in 6MWD was observed at 2 weeks and continued through 12 weeks2

    Primary Endpoint: Mean Change from Baseline in 6MWD

    Graph of the mean change from baseline in 6MWD for Adempas vs Placebo for overall population

    Exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses

    PATENT-1 Subgroup Analysis: Change in 6MWD from baseline to Week 121

    MEAN CHANGE FROM BASELINE IN 6MWD

    Graph of the mean change from baseline in 6MWD for Adempas vs Placebo for Treatment-naïve subgroup
    Graph of the mean change on Adempas vs Placebo for pretreated subgroup

    The data in this analysis should be considered exploratory and not designed to detect statistically significant differences in these subgroups.

    PATENT-1 (n=443): 50% more patients improved WHO FC vs placebo

    CHANGE IN WHO FC

    Bar chart of the change in WHO FC vs placebo for overall population

    Exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses 

    PATENT-1 Subgroup Analysis: Change in WHO FC from baseline to Week 121

    Change from baseline in WHO FC

    Bar chart of the change in WHO FC from baseline vs placebo for treatment-naïve subgroup at week 12
    Change in WHO FC from baseline vs placebo for pretreated subgroup

    The data in this analysis should be considered exploratory and not designed to detect statistically significant differences in these subgroups.

    PATENT-1 (n=443): Improved PVR and NT-proBNP at Week 122*

    Change in hemodynamic parameters

    Illustration of the hemodynamic parameter in overall population comparing PVR and NT-proBNP

    *Placebo-adjusted mean change from baseline.

    • Right heart catheterization was performed at the beginning and end of the study period in 339 patients.

    Exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses

    Clinical worsening events up to 12 weeks

    Illustration of the clinical worsening event in Adempas vs Placebo observed up to Week 12 post hoc subgroup analysis.
    Illustration of the clinical worsening event in Adempas vs Placebo observed up to Week 12 post hoc subgroup analysis.

    The data in this analysis should be considered exploratory and not designed to detect statistically significant differences in subgroups.

    *Time to clinical worsening was a combined endpoint defined as death (all-cause mortality), heart/lung transplantation, atrial septostomy, hospitalization due to persistent worsening of pulmonary hypertension, start of new PAH-specific treatment, persistent decrease in 6MWD, and persistent worsening of WHO FC.

    Patients may have had more than one event of clinical worsening.

    Exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses 

    PATENT-1 Subgroup Analysis: Change in PVR and NT-proBNP from baseline to Week 121

    MEAN CHANGE FROM BASELINE IN PVR AND NT-proBNP

    Illustration of the mean change in PVR and NT-proBNP from baseline to Week 12 for treatment-naïve subgroup
    Mean change in PVR and NT-proBNP from baseline to Week 12 for pretreated subgroup

    The data in this analysis should be considered exploratory and not designed to detect statistically significant differences in these subgroups.

    6MWD = 6-minute walk distance; ERA = endothelin receptor antagonist; m = meters; mPAP = mean pulmonary arterial pressure; mm Hg = millimeters mercury; NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide; PAH = pulmonary arterial hypertension; PATENT-1 = Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Soluble Guanylate Cyclase-Stimulator Trial; PCA = prostacyclin analogues; PVR = pulmonary vascular resistance; SD = standard deviation; WHO FC = World Health Organization Functional Class.

     
    MORE IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION LESS IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

    References:

    1. Ghofrani H-A, Galiè N, Grimminger F, et al. Riociguat for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:330-340.
    2. Galiè N, Humbert M, Vachiery JL, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(1):67-119.
    3. McLaughlin VV, Gaine SP, Howard LS, et al. Treatment goals of pulmonary hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(25):D73-D81.

    References:

    1. Data on file. Clinical study report No. A62510. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, 2012.
    2. Ghofrani H-A, Galiè N, Grimminger F, et al. Riociguat for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:330-340.
    3. Galiè N, Grimminger F, Grünig E, et al. Comparison of hemodynamic parameters in treatment-naïve and pre-treated patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension in the randomized phase III PATENT-1 study. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36(5):509-519.