Cardiorespiratory Responses between One-Legged and Two-Legged Cycling in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

International guidelines recommend exercise training within pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for adults with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) [1]. However, the magnitude of benefits of PR in IPF may be less than in COPD [2] and are not sustained [3]. Partitioned muscle training has been investigated for other chronic diseases where a central limitation to exercise dominates [4-6]. One-legged cycling partitions the targeted exercising muscle thereby reducing the total ventilatory burden for the same muscle specific power. In ventilatory limited patients with COPD, partitioned training increases cardiorespiratory fitness [4, 7] measured by peak oxygen uptake (V̇ O2pk) greater than that achieved with conventional twolegged cycle training. We hypothesised that patients with IPF would increase their tolerable exercise time of a leg exercising alone (one-legged cycling) compared to two-legged cycling so that the total work would be doubled (the primary outcome). We also aimed to quantify peripheral muscle aerobic capacity relative to the central capacity by determining the ratio of V̇ O2pk achieved during one- versus two-legged cycling

Multi-center evaluation of baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR) ratio as an independent predictor of mortality and clinical risk stratifier in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive, fatal disorder with a variable disease trajectory. The aim of this study was to assess the potential of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) to predict outcomes in IPF. Methods: We adopted a two-stage discovery (n = 71) and validation (n = 134) design using patients from the UCL partners (UCLp) cohort. We then combined discovery and validation cohorts and included an additional 794 people with IPF, using real-life data from 5 other UK centers, to give a combined cohort of 999 patients. Data were collected from patients presenting over a 13-year period (2006–2019) with mean follow up of 3.7 years (censoring: 2018–2020). Findings: In the discovery analysis, we showed that high values of NLR (>/ = 2.9 vs < 2.9) were associated with increased risk of mortality in IPF (HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.09–3.81, n = 71, p = 0.025). This was confirmed in the validation (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.15–3.18, n = 134, p = 0.0114) and combined cohorts (HR 1.65, n = 999, 95% CI 1.39–1.95; p < 0·0001). NLR correlated with GAP stage and GAP index (p < 0.0001). Stratifying patients by NLR category (low/high) showed significant differences in survival for GAP stage 2 (p < 0.0001), however not for GAP stage 1 or 3. In a multivariate analysis, a high NLR was an independent predictor of mortality/progression after adjustment for individual GAP components and steroid/anti-fibrotic use (p < 0·03). Furthermore, incorporation of baseline NLR in a modified GAP-stage/index, GAP–index/stage-plus, refined prognostic ability as measured by concordance (C)-index. Interpretation: We have identified NLR as a widely available test that significantly correlates with lung function, can predict outcomes in IPF and refines cohort staging with GAP. NLR may allow timely prioritisation of at-risk patients, even in the absence of lung function. Funding: Breathing Matters, GSK, CF Trust, BLF-Asthma, MRC, NIHR Alpha-1 Foundation

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pirfenidone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

Background: Interstitial lung disease is a known complication of rheumatoid arthritis, with a lifetime risk of developing the disease in any individual of 7·7%. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pirfenidone for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). Methods: TRAIL1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial done in 34 academic centres specialising in interstitial lung disease in four countries (the UK, the USA, Australia, and Canada). Adults aged 18–85 years were eligible for inclusion if they met the 2010 American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and had interstitial lung disease on a high-resolution CT scan imaging and, when available, lung biopsy. Exclusion criteria include smoking, clinical history of other known causes of interstitial lung disease, and coexistant clinically significant COPD or asthma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2403 mg oral pirfenidone (pirfenidone group) or placebo (placebo group) daily. The primary endpoint was the incidence of the composite endpoint of a decline from baseline in percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) of 10% or more or death during the 52-week treatment period assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary endpoints included change in absolute and FVC% over 52 weeks, the proportion of patients with a decline in FVC% of 10% or more, and the frequency of progression as defined by Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02808871. Findings: From May 15, 2017, to March 31, 2020, 231 patients were assessed for inclusion, of whom 123 patients were randomly assigned (63 [51%] to the pirfenidone group and 60 [49%] to the placebo group). The trial was stopped early (March 31, 2020) due to slow recruitment and the COVID-19 pandemic. The difference in the proportion of patients who met the composite primary endpoint (decline in FVC% from baseline of 10% or more or death) between the two groups was not significant (seven [11%] of 63 patients in the pirfenidone group vs nine [15%] of 60 patients in the placebo group; OR 0·67 [95% CI 0·22 to 2·03]; p=0·48). Compared with the placebo group, patients in the pirfenidone group had a slower rate of decline in lung function, measured by estimated annual change in absolute FVC (–66 vs –146; p=0·0082) and FVC% (–1·02 vs –3·21; p=0·0028). The groups were similar with regards to the decline in FVC% by 10% or more (five [8%] participants in the pirfenidone group vs seven [12%] in the placebo group; OR 0·52 [95% CI 0·14–1·90]; p=0·32) and the frequency of progression as defined by OMERACT (16 [25%] in the pirfenidone group vs 19 [32%] in the placebo group; OR 0·68 [0·30–1·54]; p=0·35). There was no significant difference in the rate of treatment-emergent serious adverse events between the two groups, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: Due to early termination of the study and underpowering, the results should be interpreted with caution. Despite not meeting the composite primary endpoint, pirfenidone slowed the rate of decline of FVC over time in patients with RA-ILD. Safety in patients with RA-ILD was similar to that seen in other pirfenidone trials. Funding: Genentech