High Blood Pressure clinical trials at UC Irvine

This study is being conducted to assess the long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of sotatercept (MK-7962, formerly called ACE-011) in participants with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH). This open-label, long-term follow-up (LTFU) study is supported by data from the PULSAR study (Phase 2, NCT03496207) in which treatment with sotatercept resulted in hemodynamic and functional improvements in the study participants, including those receiving maximal PAH therapy with double/triple drug combinations and intravenous prostacyclin. The primary objective of this open-label, LTFU study is to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of sotatercept when added to background PAH therapy in adult participants with PAH who have completed prior sotatercept studies. The secondary objective is to evaluate continued efficacy in adult participants with PAH who have completed prior sotatercept studies.

Study ROR-PH-301, ADVANCE OUTCOMES, is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ralinepag when added to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) standard of care or PAH-specific background therapy in subjects with World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1 PAH.

Study ROR-PH-303, ADVANCE EXTENSION, is an open-label extension (OLE) study for participants with WHO Group 1 PAH who have participated in another Phase 2 or Phase 3 study of ralinepag.

This is a Phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sotatercept versus placebo in adults with Cpc-PH due to HFpEF. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sotatercept versus placebo in adults with Cpc-PH due to HFpEF. Efficacy is measured by change from baseline in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR, primary endpoint) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD, key secondary endpoint).

The primary objective of the study is to determine the effect of seralutinib on improving exercise capacity in subjects with WHO Group 1 PAH who are FC II or III. The secondary objective for this trial is to determine time to clinical worsening.

Potential outcomes after PE occur on a spectrum: complete recovery, exercise intolerance from deconditioning/anxiety, dyspnea from concomitant cardiopulmonary conditions, dyspnea from residual pulmonary vascular occlusion, chronic thromboembolic disease and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Although a battery of advanced diagnostic tests could distinguish each of those conditions, the yield of individual tests among all post- PE patients is low enough that routine testing of all PE patients is not typically performed. Although the various possible post-PE outcomes have enormous implications for patient care, they are rarely distinguished clinically. Perhaps for this reason, chronic conditions after PE are rarely (if ever) used as endpoints in randomized clinical trials of acute PE treatment. The proposed project will validate a clinical decision tree to distinguish among the various discrete outcomes cost-effectively through a hierarchical series of tests with the acronym SEARCH (for symptom screen, exercise function, arterial perfusion, resting heart function, confirmatory imaging and hemodynamics). Each step of the algorithm sorts a subset of patients into a diagnostic category unequivocally in a cost-effective manner. The categories are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, so that each case falls into one, and only one, category. Each individual test used in the algorithm has been clinically validated in pulmonary embolism patients, including the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) technique that the investigators developed and validated. However, the decision tree approach to deploying the tests has not yet been validated. Aim 1 will determine whether the SEARCH algorithm will yield concordant post-PE diagnoses when multiple reviewers independently evaluate multiple cases (reliability). Aim 2 will determine whether the post-PE diagnoses are stable, according to the SEARCH algorithm, between the first evaluation and the subsequent one six months later (validity).