Unmet needs in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis―insights from patient chart review in five European countries

Background: Two antifibrotic drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, are approved by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). In this analysis, treatment patterns of European patients with IPF were investigated to understand antifibrotic prescribing and identify unmet needs in IPF treatment practice. Methods: Between February and March 2016, respiratory physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK participated in an online questionnaire designed to collect information on IPF treatment patterns in patients under their care. Patients were categorized as treated (received approved antifibrotics) or untreated (did not receive approved antifibrotics, but may have received other unapproved therapies). Classification of IPF diagnosis (confirmed/suspected) and severity ('mild'/'moderate'/'severe') for each patient was based on the individual physician's report. Patients' perspectives were not recorded in this study. Results: In total, 290 physicians responded to the questionnaire. Overall, 54% of patients with IPF did not receive treatment with an approved antifibrotic. More patients had a confirmed IPF diagnosis in the treated (84%) versus the untreated (51%) population. Of patients with a confirmed diagnosis, 40% did not receive treatment. The treated population was younger than the untreated population (67 vs 70 years, respectively; p = 0.01), with more frequent multidisciplinary team evaluation (83% vs 57%, respectively; p = 0.01). A higher proportion of untreated patients had forced vital capacity > 80% at diagnosis versus treated patients. Of patients with 'mild' IPF, 71% did not receive an approved antifibrotic versus 41% and 60% of patients with 'moderate' and 'severe' IPF, respectively. Conclusions: Despite the availability of antifibrotic therapies, many European patients with confirmed IPF do not receive approved antifibrotic treatment. Importantly, there appears to be a reluctance to treat patients with 'mild' or 'stable' disease, and instead adopt a 'watch and wait' approach. More education is required to address diagnostic uncertainty, poor understanding of IPF and its treatments, and issues of treatment access. There is a need to increase physician awareness of the benefits associated with antifibrotic treatment across the spectrum of IPF severity

Pirfenidone in patients with unclassifiable progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease: design of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial

Introduction: Despite extensive multidisciplinary team (MDT) assessment, some patients have interstitial lung disease (ILD) that is considered unclassifiable (uILD), for which there are currently no approved treatments. This study will assess the efficacy and safety of the antifibrotic pirfenidone in treating uILD. Methods and analysis: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial is enrolling adults with fibrosing ILD, including uILD that fulfils proposed research criteria for interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF), that cannot be classified with moderate or high confidence to any category of ILD following MDT discussion. Study participants must have >10% fibrosis on high-resolution CT scan within the previous 12 months, forced vital capacity (FVC) ≥45% and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide ≥30% of predicted values. Study participants will be randomised to receive 801 mg pirfenidone or placebo three times daily for 24 weeks. The efficacy of pirfenidone vs placebo will be assessed by daily measurement of FVC using a handheld spirometer over the treatment period. Other functional parameters, patient-reported outcomes, samples for biomarker analysis and safety endpoints will be collected. Additionally, the study will assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone with and without concomitant mycophenolate mofetil treatment and in study participants with or without IPAF. Ethics and dissemination: This trial is being conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation E6 guideline for Good Clinical Practice, Declaration of Helsinki and local laws for countries in which the research is conducted

Effects of add-on Celecoxib treatment on patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and inflammatory cytokine profile trial (TargetFlame): study design and methodology of a multicentre randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Neuroinflammation has been proposed to impact symptomatology in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. While previous studies have shown equivocal effects of treatments with add-on anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin, N-acetylcysteine and Celecoxib, none have used a subset of prospectively recruited patients exhibiting an inflammatory profile. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety as well as the cost-effectiveness of a treatment with 400 mg Celecoxib added to an ongoing antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders exhibiting an inflammatory profile. The “Add-on Celecoxib treatment in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and inflammatory cytokine profile trial (TargetFlame)” is a multicentre randomized, placebo-controlled phase III investigator-initiated clinical trial with the following two arms: patients exhibiting an inflammatory profile receiving either add-on Celecoxib 400 mg/day or add-on placebo. A total of 199 patients will be assessed for eligibility by measuring blood levels of three pro-inflammatory cytokines, and 109 patients with an inflammatory profile, i.e. inflamed, will be randomized, treated for 8 weeks and followed-up for additional four months. The primary endpoint will be changes in symptom severity as assessed by total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score changes from baseline to week 8. Secondary endpoints include various other measures of psychopathology and safety. Additional health economic analyses will be performed. TargetFlame is the first study aimed at evaluating the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the antiphlogistic agent Celecoxib in a subset of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders exhibiting an inflammatory profile. With TargetFlame, we intended to investigate a novel precision medicine approach towards anti-inflammatory antipsychotic treatment augmentation using drug repurposing. Clinical trial registration: http://www.drks.de/DRKS00029044 and https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS0002904

Unmet needs in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis―insights from patient chart review in five European countries

Background: Two antifibrotic drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, are approved by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). In this analysis, treatment patterns of European patients with IPF were investigated to understand antifibrotic prescribing and identify unmet needs in IPF treatment practice. Methods: Between February and March 2016, respiratory physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK participated in an online questionnaire designed to collect information on IPF treatment patterns in patients under their care. Patients were categorized as treated (received approved antifibrotics) or untreated (did not receive approved antifibrotics, but may have received other unapproved therapies). Classification of IPF diagnosis (confirmed/suspected) and severity ('mild'/'moderate'/'severe') for each patient was based on the individual physician's report. Patients' perspectives were not recorded in this study. Results: In total, 290 physicians responded to the questionnaire. Overall, 54% of patients with IPF did not receive treatment with an approved antifibrotic. More patients had a confirmed IPF diagnosis in the treated (84%) versus the untreated (51%) population. Of patients with a confirmed diagnosis, 40% did not receive treatment. The treated population was younger than the untreated population (67 vs 70 years, respectively; p = 0.01), with more frequent multidisciplinary team evaluation (83% vs 57%, respectively; p = 0.01). A higher proportion of untreated patients had forced vital capacity > 80% at diagnosis versus treated patients. Of patients with 'mild' IPF, 71% did not receive an approved antifibrotic versus 41% and 60% of patients with 'moderate' and 'severe' IPF, respectively. Conclusions: Despite the availability of antifibrotic therapies, many European patients with confirmed IPF do not receive approved antifibrotic treatment. Importantly, there appears to be a reluctance to treat patients with 'mild' or 'stable' disease, and instead adopt a 'watch and wait' approach. More education is required to address diagnostic uncertainty, poor understanding of IPF and its treatments, and issues of treatment access. There is a need to increase physician awareness of the benefits associated with antifibrotic treatment across the spectrum of IPF severity

A review of the challenges, learnings and future directions of home handheld spirometry in interstitial lung disease

Background: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular physician visits and referral to specialist ILD clinics. Difficulties or delays in accessing care can limit opportunities to monitor disease trajectory and response to treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has added to these challenges. Therefore, home monitoring technologies, such as home handheld spirometry, have gained increased attention as they may help to improve access to care for patients with ILD. However, while several studies have shown that home handheld spirometry in ILD is acceptable for most patients, data from clinical trials are not sufficiently robust to support its use as a primary endpoint. This review discusses the challenges that were encountered with handheld spirometry across three recent ILD studies, which included home spirometry as a primary endpoint, and highlights where further optimisation and research into home handheld spirometry in ILD is required. Abstract body: Rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) as measured by daily home handheld spirometry versus site spirometry was of primary interest in three recently completed studies: STARLINER (NCT03261037), STARMAP and a Phase II study of pirfenidone in progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD (NCT03099187). Unanticipated practical and technical issues led to problems with estimating FVC decline. In all three studies, cross-sectional correlations for home handheld versus site spirometry were strong/moderate at baseline and later timepoints, but longitudinal correlations were weak. Other issues observed with the home handheld spirometry data included: high within-patient variability in home handheld FVC measurements; implausible longitudinal patterns in the home handheld spirometry data that were not reflected in site spirometry; and extreme estimated rates of FVC change. Conclusions: Home handheld spirometry in ILD requires further optimisation and research to ensure accurate and reliable FVC measurements before it can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials. Refresher training, automated alerts of problems and FVC changes, and patient support could help to overcome some practical issues. Despite the challenges, there is value in incorporating home handheld spirometry into clinical practice, and the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential for home monitoring technologies to help improve access to care for patients with ILD

Additional file 3: of Unmet needs in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis―insights from patient chart review in five European countries

Months until next consultation in the treated or untreated populations (excluding patients receiving only palliative care) for the pooled population and split by expert versus non-expert centers. (DOCX 14 kb

Additional file 1: of Unmet needs in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis―insights from patient chart review in five European countries

Physician screening questionnaire. (DOCX 198 kb