The effects of cumulative stressful educational events on the mental health of doctoral students during the Covid-19 pandemic

High rates of psychological distress including anxiety and depression are common in the doctoral community and the learning environment has a role to play. With the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic taking a toll on mental health it is necessary to explore the risk and protective factors for this population. Using data from the Covid-19: Global Study of Social Trust and Mental Health, the present study examined the relationship between Covid-19-related stressful educational experiences and doctoral students' mental health problems. Moreover, it assessed the role of attentional ability and coping skills in promoting good mental health. One hundred and fifty-five doctoral students completed an online survey where micro-, meso- and macro-level educational stressors were measured. The Patient Health Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire were used to measure depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. We also measured coping skills using a 13-item scale and attentional ability using a questionnaire. The results of multiple linear regression analyses showed that specific stressful educational experiences were unrelated but cumulative stressful educational experiences were related to increased depression symptoms (but not anxiety symptoms) in fully adjusted models. Additionally, higher coping skills and attentional ability were related to fewer depression and anxiety symptoms. Finally, no associations between demographics and other covariates and mental health problems were found. The experience of multiple educational stressful events in their learning environment due to Covid-19 is a key risk factor for increased mental illness in the doctoral community. This could be explained by the uncertainty that the Covid-19 pandemic has caused to the students

Rituximab versus intravenous cyclophosphamide in patients with connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease in the UK (RECITAL): a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 2b trial

BACKGROUND: Rituximab is often used as rescue therapy in interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with connective tissue disease (CTD), but has not been studied in clinical trials. This study aimed to assess whether rituximab is superior to cyclophosphamide as a treatment for severe or progressive CTD associated ILD. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 2b trial to assess the superiority of rituximab compared with cyclophosphamide. Patients aged 18-80 years with severe or progressive ILD related to scleroderma, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or mixed CTD, recruited across 11 specialist ILD or rheumatology centres in the UK, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rituximab (1000 mg at weeks 0 and 2 intravenously) or cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2 body surface area every 4 weeks intravenously for six doses). The primary endpoint was rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC) at 24 weeks compared with baseline, analysed using a mixed-effects model with random intercepts, adjusted for baseline FVC and CTD type. Prespecified secondary endpoints reported in this Article were change in FVC at 48 weeks versus baseline; changes from baseline in 6 min walk distance, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), physician-assessed global disease activity (GDA) score, and quality-of-life scores on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) questionnaire, and European Quality of Life Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire at 24 and 48 weeks; overall survival, progression-free survival, and time to treatment failure; and corticosteroid use. All endpoints were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01862926). FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2014, and March 31, 2020, we screened 145 participants, of whom 101 participants were randomly allocated: 50 (50%) to receive cyclophosphamide and 51 (50%) to receive rituximab. 48 (96%) participants in the cyclophosphamide group and 49 (96%) in the rituximab group received at least one dose of treatment and were included in analyses; 43 (86%) participants in the cyclophosphamide group and 42 (82%) participants in the rituximab group completed 24 weeks of treatment and follow-up. At 24 weeks, FVC was improved from baseline in both the cyclophosphamide group (unadjusted mean increase 99 mL [SD 329]) and the rituximab group (97 mL [234]); in the adjusted mixed-effects model, the difference in the primary endpoint at 24 weeks was -40 mL (95% CI -153 to 74; p=0·49) between the rituximab group and the cyclophosphamide group. KBILD quality-of-life scores were improved at 24 weeks by a mean 9·4 points (SD 20·8) in the cyclophosphamide group and 8·8 points (17·0) in the rituximab group. No significant differences in secondary endpoints were identified between the treatment groups, with the exception of change in GDA score at week 48, which favoured cyclophosphamide (difference 0·90 [95% CI 0·11 to 1·68]). Improvements in lung function and respiratory-related quality-of-life measures were observed in both treatment groups. Lower corticosteroid exposure over 48 weeks of follow-up was recorded in the rituximab group. Two (4%) of 48 participants who received cyclophosphamide and three (6%) of 49 who received rituximab died during the study, all due to complications of CTD or ILD. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and time to treatment failure did not significantly differ between the two groups. All participants reported at least one adverse event during the study. Numerically fewer adverse events were reported by participants receiving rituximab (445 events) than those receiving cyclophosphamide (646 events). Gastrointestinal and respiratory disorders were the most commonly reported adverse events in both groups. There were 62 serious adverse events of which 33 occurred in the cyclophosphamide group and 29 in the rituximab group. INTERPRETATION: Rituximab was not superior to cyclophosphamide to treat patients with CTD-ILD, although participants in both treatment groups had increased FVC at 24 weeks, in addition to clinically important improvements in patient-reported quality of life. Rituximab was associated with fewer adverse events. Rituximab should be considered as a therapeutic alternative to cyclophosphamide in individuals with CTD-ILD requiring intravenous therapy. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme (Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research, UK)

Functional associations of pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis and emphysema with hypersensitivity pneumonitis

BACKGROUND: Pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (PPFE) has been described in hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) yet its functional implications are unclear. Combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE) has occasionally been described in never-smokers with HP, but epidemiological data regarding its prevalence is sparse. CTs in a large HP cohort were therefore examined to identify the prevalence and effects of PPFE and emphysema. Methods: 233 HP patients had CT extents of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and emphysema quantified to the nearest 5%. Lobar percentage pleural involvement of PPFE was quantified on a 4-point categorical scale: 0 = absent, 1 = affecting 33%. Marked PPFE reflected a total lung score of ≥3/18. Results were evaluated against FVC, DLco and mortality. RESULTS: Marked PPFE prevalence was 23% whilst 23% of never-smokers had emphysema. Following adjustment for patient age, gender, smoking status, and ILD and emphysema extents, marked PPFE independently linked to reduced baseline FVC (p = 0.0002) and DLco (p = 0.002) and when examined alongside the same covariates, independently linked to worsened survival (p = 0.01). CPFE in HP demonstrated a characteristic functional profile of artificial lung volume preservation and disproportionate DLco reduction. CPFE did not demonstrate a worsened outcome when compared to HP patients without emphysema beyond that explained by CT extents of ILD and emphysema. CONCLUSIONS: PPFE is not uncommon in HP, and is independently associated with impaired lung function and increased mortality. Emphysema was identified in 23% of HP never-smokers. CPFE appears not to link to a malignant microvascular phenotype as outcome is explained by ILD and emphysema extents

Predicting outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis related interstitial lung disease

Aims: To compare radiology-based prediction models in rheumatoid arthritis-related interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) to identify patients with a progressive fibrosis phenotype.Methods: RAILD patients had CTs scored visually and by CALIPER and forced vital capacity (FVC) measurements. Outcomes were evaluated using three techniques: 1.Scleroderma system evaluating visual ILD extent and FVC values; 2.Fleischer Society IPF diagnostic guidelines applied to RAILD; 3.CALIPER scores of vessel-related structures (VRS). Outcomes were compared to IPF patients.Results: On univariable Cox analysis, all three staging systems strongly predicted outcome: Scleroderma System:HR=3.78, p=9×10-5; Fleischner System:HR=1.98, p=2×10-3; 4.4% VRS threshold:HR=3.10, p=4×10-4 When the Scleroderma and Fleischner Systems were combined, termed the Progressive Fibrotic System (C-statistic=0.71), they identified a patient subset (n=36) with a progressive fibrotic phenotype and similar 4-year survival to IPF.On multivariable analysis, with adjustment for patient age, gender and smoking status, when analysed alongside the Progressive Fibrotic System, the VRS threshold of 4.4% independently predicted outcome (Model C-statistic=0.77).Conclusions: The combination of two visual CT-based staging systems identified 23% of an RAILD cohort with an IPF-like progressive fibrotic phenotype. The addition of a computer-derived VRS threshold further improved outcome prediction and model fit, beyond that encompassed by RAILD measures of disease severity and extent

Real-world experience of nintedanib for progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease in the UK

Background Nintedanib slows progression of lung function decline in patients with progressive fibrosing (PF) interstitial lung disease (ILD) and was recommended for this indication within the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service in Scotland in June 2021 and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in November 2021. To date, there has been no national evaluation of the use of nintedanib for PF-ILD in a real-world setting.Methods 26 UK centres were invited to take part in a national service evaluation between 17 November 2021 and 30 September 2022. Summary data regarding underlying diagnosis, pulmonary function tests, diagnostic criteria, radiological appearance, concurrent immunosuppressive therapy and drug tolerability were collected via electronic survey.Results 24 UK prescribing centres responded to the service evaluation invitation. Between 17 November 2021 and 30 September 2022, 1120 patients received a multidisciplinary team recommendation to commence nintedanib for PF-ILD. The most common underlying diagnoses were hypersensitivity pneumonitis (298 out of 1120, 26.6%), connective tissue disease associated ILD (197 out of 1120, 17.6%), rheumatoid arthritis associated ILD (180 out of 1120, 16.0%), idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (125 out of 1120, 11.1%) and unclassifiable ILD (100 out of 1120, 8.9%). Of these, 54.4% (609 out of 1120) were receiving concomitant corticosteroids, 355 (31.7%) out of 1120 were receiving concomitant mycophenolate mofetil and 340 (30.3%) out of 1120 were receiving another immunosuppressive/modulatory therapy. Radiological progression of ILD combined with worsening respiratory symptoms was the most common reason for the diagnosis of PF-ILD.Conclusion We have demonstrated the use of nintedanib for the treatment of PF-ILD across a broad range of underlying conditions. Nintedanib is frequently co-prescribed alongside immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapy. The use of nintedanib for the treatment of PF-ILD has demonstrated acceptable tolerability in a real-world setting

Personalised medicine in interstitial lung diseases

Interstitial lung diseases in general, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in particular, are complex disorders with multiple pathogenetic pathways, various disease behaviour profiles and different responses to treatment, all facets that make personalised medicine a highly attractive concept. Personalised medicine is aimed at describing distinct disease subsets taking into account individual lifestyle, environmental exposures, genetic profiles and molecular pathways. The cornerstone of personalised medicine is the identification of biomarkers that can be used to inform diagnosis, prognosis and treatment stratification. At present, no data exist validating a personalised approach in individual diseases. However, the importance of the goal amply justifies the characterisation of genotype and pathway signatures with a view to refining prognostic evaluation and trial design, with the ultimate aim of selecting treatments according to profiles in individual patients