Is there a uniform approach to the management of diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD) in the UK? A national benchmarking exercise

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is the comparison of a process to the work or results of others. We conducted a national benchmarking exercise to determine how UK pulmonologists manage common clinical scenarios in diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD), and to determine current use and availability of investigative resources. We compared management decisions to existing international guidelines. METHODS: Consultant members of the British Thoracic Society were mailed a questionnaire seeking their views on the management of three common scenarios in DPLD. They were asked to choose from various management options for each case. Information was also obtained from the respondents on time served as a consultant, type of institution in which they worked and the availability of a local radiologist and histopathologist with an interest/expertise in thoracic medicine. RESULTS: 370 out of 689 consultants replied (54% response rate). There were many differences in the approach to the management of all three cases. Given a scenario of relapsing pulmonary sarcoidosis in a lady with multiple co-morbidities, half of respondents would institute treatment with a variety of immunosuppressants while a half would simply observe. 42% would refer a 57-year old lady with new onset DPLD for a surgical lung biopsy, while a similar number would not. 80% would have referred her for transplantation, but a fifth would not. 50% of consultants from district general hospitals would have opted for a surgical biopsy compared to 24% from cardiothoracic centres: this may reflect greater availability of a radiologist with special interest in thoracic imaging in cardiothoracic centres, obviating the need for tissue diagnosis. Faced with an elderly male with high resolution CT thorax (HRCT) evidence of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), three quarters would observe, while a quarter would start immunosuppressants. 11% would refer for a surgical biopsy. 14% of UK pulmonologists responding to the survey revealed they had no access to a radiologist with an interest in thoracic radiology. CONCLUSION: From our survey, it appears there is a lack of consensus in the management of DPLD. This may reflect lack of evidence, lack of resources or a failure to implement current guidelines

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

Managing patients with stable respiratory disease planning air travel: a primary care summary of the British Thoracic Society recommendations

Air travel poses medical challenges to passengers with respiratory disease, principally because of exposure to a hypobaric environment. In 2002 the British Thoracic Society published recommendations for adults and children with respiratory disease planning air travel, with a web update in 2004. New full recommendations and a summary were published in 2011, containing key recommendations for the assessment of high-risk patients and identification of those likely to require in-flight supplemental oxygen. This paper highlights the aspects of particular relevance to primary care practitioners with the following key points: (1) At cabin altitudes of 8000 feet (the usual upper limit of in-flight cabin pressure, equivalent to 0.75 atmospheres) the partial pressure of oxygen falls to the equivalent of breathing 15.1% oxygen at sea level. Arterial oxygen tension falls in all passengers; in patients with respiratory disease, altitude may worsen preexisting hypoxaemia. (2) Altitude exposure also influences the volume of any air in cavities, where pressure x volume remain constant (Boyle's law), so that a pneumothorax or closed lung bulla will expand and may cause respiratory distress. Similarly, barotrauma may affect the middle ear or sinuses if these cavities fail to equilibrate. (3) Patients with respiratory disease require clinical assessment and advice before air travel to: (a) optimise usual care; (b) consider contraindications to travel and possible need for in-flight oxygen; (c) consider the need for secondary care referral for further assessment; (d) discuss the risk of venous thromboembolism; and (e) discuss forward planning for the journey