Recurrent Acute Pulmonary Toxicity and Respiratory Failure Associated with Fludarabine Monophosphate

A case of recurrent acute fludarabine pulmonary toxicity in a 67-year-old man with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is presented. The patient responded well to high dose steroid therapy. The literature with respect to this rare entity is reviewed

Long-term effect of azithromycin in bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome

Introduction Azithromycin stabilises and improves lung function forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) in lung transplantation patients with bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). A post hoc analysis was performed to assess the long-term effect of azithromycin on FEV1, BOS progression and survival. Methods Eligible patients recruited for the initial randomised placebo-controlled trial received open-label azithromycin after 3 months and were followed up until 6 years after inclusion (n=45) to assess FEV1, BOS free progression and overall survival. Results FEV1 in the placebo group improved after open-label azithromycin and was comparable with the treatment group by 6 months. FEV1 decreased after 1 and 5 years and was not different between groups. Patients (n=18) with rapid progression of BOS underwent total lymphoid irradiation ( TLI). Progression-free survival (log-rank test p=0.40) and overall survival (log-rank test p=0.28) were comparable. Survival of patients with early BOS was similar to late-onset BOS (log-rank test p=0.74). Discussion Long-term treatment with azithromycin slows down the progression of BOS, although the effect of TLI may affect the observed attenuation of FEV1 decline. BOS progression and long-term survival were not affected by randomisation to the placebo group, given the early cross-over to azithromycin and possibly due to TLI in case of further progression. Performing randomised placebo-controlled trials in lung transplantation patients with BOS with a blinded trial duration is feasible, effective and safe

Clinical trial protocol for TRANSFORM-UK: A therapeutic open-label study of tocilizumab in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Our aim is to assess the safety and potential efficacy of a novel treatment paradigm in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), immunomodulation by blocking interleukin-6 (IL6) signaling with the IL6 receptor antagonist, tocilizumab. Inflammation and autoimmunity are established as important in PAH pathophysiology. One of the most robust observations across multiple cohorts in PAH has been an increase in IL6, both in the lung and systemically. Tocilizumab is an IL-6 receptor antagonist established as safe and effective, primarily in rheumatoid arthritis, and has shown promise in scleroderma. In case reports where the underlying cause of PAH is an inflammatory process such as systemic lupus erythematosus, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), and Castleman's disease, there have been case reports of regression of PAH with tocilizumab. TRANSFORM-UK is an open-label study of intravenous (IV) tocilizumab in patients with group 1 PAH. The co-primary outcome measures will be safety and the change in resting pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). Clinically relevant secondary outcome measurements include 6-minute walk distance, WHO functional class, quality of life score, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). If the data support a potentially useful therapeutic effect with an acceptable risk profile, the study will be used to power a Phase III study to properly address efficacy

Outcomes of lung transplantation in adults with bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation is a well-established treatment for end-stage non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (BR), though information regarding outcomes of transplantation remains limited. Our results of lung transplantation for Br are reported here. METHODS: A retrospective review of case notes and transplantation databases was conducted for patients that had underwent lung transplantation for bronchiectasis at the Freeman Hospital between 1990 and 2013. RESULTS: Fourty two BR patients underwent lung transplantation, the majority (39) having bilateral sequential lung transplantation. Mean age at transplantation was 47.1 years. Pre-transplantation osteoporosis was a significant non-pulmonary morbidity (48%). Polymicrobial infection was common, with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection frequently but not universally observed (67%). Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (% predicted) improved from a pre-transplantation mean of 0.71 L (22% predicted) to 2.56 L (79 % predicted) at 1-year post-transplantation. Our survival results were 74% at 1 year, 64% at 3 years, 61% at 5 years and 48% at 10 years. Sepsis was a common cause of early post-transplantation deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplantation for end-stage BR is a useful therapeutic option, with good survival and lung function outcomes. Survival values were similar to other bilateral lung transplants at our centre. Pre-transplantation Pseudomonas infection is common

Long term (5 Year) safety of bronchial thermoplasty: Asthma Intervention Research (AIR) trial

<b>Background:</b> Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a bronchoscopic procedure that improves asthma control by reducing excess airway smooth muscle. Treated patients have been followed out to 5 years to evaluate long-term safety of this procedure. <br></br> <br></br> <b>Methods:</b> Patients enrolled in the Asthma Intervention Research Trial were on inhaled corticosteroids ≥200 μg beclomethasone or equivalent + long-acting-beta2-agonists and demonstrated worsening of asthma on long-acting-β2-agonist withdrawal. Following initial evaluation at 1 year, subjects were invited to participate in a 4 year safety study. Adverse events (AEs) and spirometry data were used to assess long-term safety out to 5 years post-BT. <br></br> <br></br> <b>Results:</b> 45 of 52 treated and 24 of 49 control group subjects participated in long-term follow-up of 5 years and 3 years respectively. The rate of respiratory adverse events (AEs/subject) was stable in years 2 to 5 following BT (1.2, 1.3, 1.2, and 1.1, respectively,). There was no increase in hospitalizations or emergency room visits for respiratory symptoms in Years 2, 3, 4, and 5 compared to Year 1. The FVC and FEV1 values showed no deterioration over the 5 year period in the BT group. Similar results were obtained for the Control group. <br></br><br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> The absence of clinical complications (based on AE reporting) and the maintenance of stable lung function (no deterioration of FVC and FEV1) over a 5-year period post-BT in this group of patients with moderate to severe asthma support the long-term safety of the procedure out to 5 years

Profiling inflammation and tissue injury markers in perfusate and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid during human ex vivo lung perfusion

OBJECTIVES: Availability of donor lungs suitable for transplant falls short of current demand and contributes to waiting list mortality. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) offers the opportunity to objectively assess and recondition organs unsuitable for immediate transplant. Identifying robust biomarkers that can stratify donor lungs during EVLP to use or non-use or for specific interventions could further improve its clinical impact. METHODS: In this pilot study, 16 consecutive donor lungs unsuitable for immediate transplant were assessed by EVLP. Key inflammatory mediators and tissue injury markers were measured in serial perfusate samples collected hourly and in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) collected before and after EVLP. Levels were compared between donor lungs that met criteria for transplant and those that did not. RESULTS: Seven of the 16 donor lungs (44%) improved during EVLP and were transplanted with uniformly good outcomes. Tissue and vascular injury markers lactate dehydrogenase, HMGB-1 and Syndecan-1 were significantly lower in perfusate from transplanted lungs. A model combining IL-1b and IL-8 concentrations in perfusate could predict final EVLP outcome after 2 h assessment. In addition, perfusate IL-1b concentrations showed an inverse correlation to recipient oxygenation 24 h post-transplant. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the feasibility of using inflammation and tissue injury markers in perfusate and BALF to identify donor lungs most likely to improve for successful transplant during clinical EVLP. These results support examining this issue in a larger study

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES:To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; Iand#178; = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; Iand#178; = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; Iand#178; = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.</p