Defining the pathway to timely diagnosis and treatment of interstitial lung disease: a US Delphi survey

Introduction Timely diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD) is limited by obstacles in the current patient pathway. Misdiagnosis and delays are common and may lead to a significant burden of diagnostic procedures and worse outcomes. This Delphi survey aimed to identify consensus on the key steps that facilitate the patient journey to an accurate ILD diagnosis and appropriate management in the US.Methods A modified Delphi analysis was conducted, comprising three online surveys based on a comprehensive literature search. The surveys spanned five domains (guidelines, community screening, diagnosis, management and specialist referral) and were completed by a panel of US physicians, including primary care physicians and pulmonologists practising in community or academic settings. A priori definitions of consensus agreement were median scores of 2–3 (agree strongly/agree), with an IQR of 0–1 for questions on a 7-point Likert scale from −3 to 3, or ≥80% agreement for binary questions.Results Forty-nine panellists completed the surveys and 62 statements reached consensus agreement. There was consensus agreement on what should be included in the primary care evaluation of patients with suspected ILD and the next steps following workup. Regarding diagnosis in community pulmonology care, consensus agreement was reached on the requisition and reporting of high-resolution CT scans and the appropriate circumstances for holding multidisciplinary discussions. Additionally, there was consensus agreement on which symptoms and comorbidities should be monitored, the frequency of consultations and the assessment of disease progression. Regarding specialist referral, consensus agreement was reached on which patients should receive priority access to ILD centres and the contents of the referral package.Conclusions These findings clarify the most common issues that should merit further evaluation for ILD and help define the steps for timely, accurate diagnosis and appropriate collaborative specialty management of patients with ILD

Associations between resources and practices of ILD centers and outcomes in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: data from the IPF-PRO Registry

Background: Performance benchmarks for the management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have not been established. We used data from the IPF-PRO Registry, an observational registry of patients with IPF managed at sites across the US, to examine associations between the characteristics of the enrolling sites and patient outcomes. Methods: An online survey was used to collect information on the resources, operations, and self-assessment practices of IPF-PRO Registry sites that enrolled >= 10 patients. Site variability in 1-year event rates of clinically relevant outcomes, including death, death or lung transplant, and hospitalization, was assessed. Models were adjusted for differences in patient case mix by adjusting for known predictors of each outcome. We assessed whether site-level heterogeneity existed for each patient-level outcome, and if so, we investigated potential drivers of the heterogeneity. Results: All 27 sites that enrolled >= 10 patients returned the questionnaire. Most sites were actively following > 100 patients with IPF (70.4%), had a lung transplant program (66.7%), and had a dedicated ILD nurse leader (77.8%). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the event rates of clinically relevant outcomes across the sites. After controlling for patient case mix, there were no outcomes for which the site variance component was significantly different from 0, but the p-value for hospitalization was 0.052. Starting/completing an ILD-related quality improvement project in the previous 2 years was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.44, 0.82]; p= 0.001). Conclusions: Analyses of data from patients with IPF managed at sites across the US found no site-specific characteristics or practices that were significantly associated with clinically relevant outcomes after adjusting for patient case mix

Improving Lung Function in Severe Heterogenous Emphysema with the Spiration Valve System (EMPROVE). A Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management. In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control). The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (  = 113) or control (  = 59). Mean FEV showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups-between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060-0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048-0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax. In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447)

Hospitalizations in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Abstract Background Hospitalizations are common among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We investigated the impact of hospitalizations on outcomes in patients with IPF. Methods The IPF-PRO Registry is an observational US registry that enrolled patients with IPF that was diagnosed or confirmed at the enrolling center in the previous 6 months. Associations between patient characteristics and hospitalization, and between hospitalization and mortality, were analyzed using Cox regression models. Results A total of 1002 patients with IPF were enrolled into the IPF-PRO Registry. Over a median follow-up time of 23.7 months (maximum: 67.0 months), 568 patients (56.7%) had at least one hospitalization. Of these patients, 319 (56.2%) had at least one respiratory-related hospitalization and 120 (21.1%) had at least one hospitalization with ventilatory support. Younger age (HR 0.68 [95% CI 0.55, 0.84] per 5-year increase for patients < 62 years), lower BMI (0.96 [0.93, 0.98] per 1-point increase), lower FVC % predicted (0.90 [0.83, 0.97] per 10% increase), oxygen use at rest (2.85 [2.18, 3.72]) and history of pulmonary hypertension (2.02 [1.37, 2.96]) at enrollment were associated with an increased risk of respiratory-related hospitalization during follow-up. In a multivariable model, there was an eightfold increase in the risk of mortality during hospitalization or within 90 days of discharge compared with outside of this period. The risk of mortality associated with a respiratory hospitalization or a hospitalization with ventilatory support was even greater. Conclusions Data from the IPF-PRO Registry demonstrate that hospitalizations are common among patients with IPF. The risk of mortality during hospitalization or within 90 days of discharge was high, particularly among patients who were hospitalized for a respiratory cause or received ventilatory support. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01915511. Registered 5 August 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0191551

Efficacy and safety of nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib (formerly known as BIBF 1120) is an intracellular inhibitor that targets multiple tyrosine kinases. A phase 2 trial suggested that treatment with 150 mg of nintedanib twice daily reduced lung-function decline and acute exacerbations in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. METHODS: We conducted two replicate 52-week, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trials (INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 150 mg of nintedanib twice daily as compared with placebo in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The primary end point was the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC). Key secondary end points were the time to the first acute exacerbation and the change from baseline in the total score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, both assessed over a 52-week period. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive nintedanib or placebo. The adjusted annual rate of change in FVC was -114.7 ml with nintedanib versus -239.9 ml with placebo (difference, 125.3 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 77.7 to 172.8; P<0.001) in INPULSIS-1 and -113.6 ml with nintedanib versus -207.3 ml with placebo (difference, 93.7 ml; 95% CI, 44.8 to 142.7; P<0.001) in INPULSIS-2. In INPULSIS-1, there was no significant difference between the nintedanib and placebo groups in the time to the first acute exacerbation (hazard ratio with nintedanib, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.54 to 2.42; P=0.67); in INPULSIS-2, there was a significant benefit with nintedanib versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.77; P=0.005). The most frequent adverse event in the nintedanib groups was diarrhea, with rates of 61.5% and 18.6% in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively, in INPULSIS-1 and 63.2% and 18.3% in the two groups, respectively, in INPULSIS-2. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, nintedanib reduced the decline in FVC, which is consistent with a slowing of disease progression; nintedanib was frequently associated with diarrhea, which led to discontinuation of the study medication in less than 5% of patients. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01335464 and NCT01335477.)