Research highlights from the 2018 ERS International Congress: interstitial lung diseases

This article reviews a selection of the scientific presentations on interstitial lung disease (ILD)/diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD) that were made at the 2018 European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress in Paris. A number of advances in the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of these disorders were presented and discussed by clinicians and researchers. The research topics span over all four groups of ERS Assembly 12: Interstitial Lung Diseases (Group 12.01: Idiopathic interstitial pneumonias; Group 12.02: ILD/DPLD of known origin; Group 12.03: Sarcoidosis and other granulomatous ILD/DPLD; Group 12.04: Rare ILD/DPLD)

Research highlights from the 2018 ERS International Congress: interstitial lung diseases

This article reviews a selection of the scientific presentations on interstitial lung disease (ILD)/diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD) that were made at the 2018 European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress in Paris. A number of advances in the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of these disorders were presented and discussed by clinicians and researchers. The research topics span over all four groups of ERS Assembly 12: Interstitial Lung Diseases (Group 12.01: Idiopathic interstitial pneumonias; Group 12.02: ILD/DPLD of known origin; Group 12.03: Sarcoidosis and other granulomatous ILD/DPLD; Group 12.04: Rare ILD/DPLD)

Managing granulomatous-lymphocytic interstitial lung disease in common variable immunodeficiency disorders : e-GLILDnet International Clinicians Survey

Background Granulomatous-lymphocytic interstitial lung disease (GLILD) is a rare, potentially severe pulmonary complication of common variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVID). Informative clinical trials and consensus on management are lacking. Aims The European GLILD network (e-GLILDnet) aims to describe how GLILD is currently managed in clinical practice and to determine the main uncertainties and unmet needs regarding diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Methods The e-GLILDnet collaborators developed and conducted an online survey facilitated by the European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) between February-April 2020. Results were analyzed using SPSS. Results One hundred and sixty-one responses from adult and pediatric pulmonologists and immunologists from 47 countries were analyzed. Respondents treated a median of 27 (interquartile range, IQR 82-maximum 500) CVID patients, of which a median of 5 (IQR 8-max 200) had GLILD. Most respondents experienced difficulties in establishing the diagnosis of GLILD and only 31 (19%) had access to a standardized protocol. There was little uniformity in diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. Fewer than 40% of respondents saw a definite need for biopsy in all cases or performed bronchoalveolar lavage for diagnostics. Sixty-six percent used glucocorticosteroids for remission-induction and 47% for maintenance therapy; azathioprine, rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil were the most frequently prescribed steroid-sparing agents. Pulmonary function tests were the preferred modality for monitoring patients during follow-up. Conclusions These data demonstrate an urgent need for clinical studies to provide more evidence for an international consensus regarding management of GLILD. These studies will need to address optimal procedures for definite diagnosis and a better understanding of the pathogenesis of GLILD in order to provide individualized treatment options. Non-availability of well-established standardized protocols risks endangering patients

Epidemiology of ILDs and their progressive-fibrosing behaviour in six European countries

The PERSEIDS study aimed to estimate incidence/prevalence of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), fibrosing Interstitial lung diseases (F-ILDs), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), systemic sclerosis-associated ILD (SSc-ILD), other non-IPF F-ILDs and their progressive-fibrosing (PF) forms in six European countries, as current data are scarce.This retrospective, two-phase study used aggregate data (2014–2018). In Phase 1, incident/prevalent cases of ILDs above were identified from clinical databases through an algorithm based on codes/keywords, and incidence/prevalence was estimated. For non-IPF F–ILDs, the relative percentage of subtypes was also determined. In Phase 2, a subset of non-IPF F-ILD cases was manually reviewed to determine the percentage of PF behaviour and usual interstitial pneumonia-like (UIP-like) pattern. A weighted mean percentage of progression was calculated for each country and used to extrapolate incidence/prevalence of progressive-fibrosing ILDs (PF–ILDs).In 2018, incidence/105 person-years ranged between 9.4–83.6(ILDs), 7.7–76.2(F-ILDs), 0.4–10.3(IPF), 6.6–71.7(non-IPF F-ILDs) and 0.3–1.5(SSc-ILD); and prevalence/105 persons ranged between 33.6–247.4(ILDs), 26.7–236.8(F-ILDs), 2.8–31.0(IPF), 22.3–205.8(non-IPF F-ILDs) and 1.4–10.1(SSc-ILD). Among non-IPF F-ILDs, sarcoidosis was the most frequent subtype. PF behaviour and UIP-like pattern were present in a third of non-IPF F-ILD cases each and hypersensitivity pneumonitis showed the highest percentage of progressive behaviour. Incidence of PF-ILDs ranged between 2.1–14.5/105 person-years, and prevalence between 6.9–78.0/105 persons.To our knowledge, PERSEIDS is the first study assessing incidence, prevalence and rate of progression of ILDs across several European countries. Still below the threshold for orphan diseases, the estimates obtained were higher and more variable than reported in previous studies, but differences in study design/population must be considered.</p

High-resolution CT phenotypes in pulmonary sarcoidosis: a multinational Delphi consensus study

One view of sarcoidosis is that the term covers many different diseases. However, no classification framework exists for the future exploration of pathogenetic pathways, genetic or trigger predilections, patterns of lung function impairment, or treatment separations, or for the development of diagnostic algorithms or relevant outcome measures. We aimed to establish agreement on high-resolution CT (HRCT) phenotypic separations in sarcoidosis to anchor future CT research through a multinational two-round Delphi consensus process. Delphi participants included members of the Fleischner Society and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders, as well as members' nominees. 146 individuals (98 chest physicians, 48 thoracic radiologists) from 28 countries took part, 144 of whom completed both Delphi rounds. After rating of 35 Delphi statements on a five-point Likert scale, consensus was achieved for 22 (63%) statements. There was 97% agreement on the existence of distinct HRCT phenotypes, with seven HRCT phenotypes that were categorised by participants as non-fibrotic or likely to be fibrotic. The international consensus reached in this Delphi exercise justifies the formulation of a CT classification as a basis for the possible definition of separate diseases. Further refinement of phenotypes with rapidly achievable CT studies is now needed to underpin the development of a formal classification of sarcoidosis

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Clinical case: Differential diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Background: The diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis can be quite challenging, even after careful clinical evaluation, imaging and pathological tests. This case report intends to demonstrate and discuss these difficulties, especially those concerning the differential diagnosis with chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Case presentation: A 58-year-old white male presented with shortness of breath, dry cough, fatigue and weight loss for two months. He was a former smoker and had regular exposure to a parakeet and poultry. Physical examination revealed bilateral basal crackles and chest imaging showed subpleural cystic lesions and traction bronchiectasis with a right side and upper level predominance. Auto-antibodies and IgG immunoglobulins to parakeet and fungal proteins were negative. Lung function tests displayed moderate restriction, low diffusion capacity and resting hypoxaemia. Bronchoalveolar lavage showed increased lymphocytes (28%) and neutrophils (12%) and surgical lung biopsy was compatible with a pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia. According to the possibility of either idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, treatment included prednisolone, azathioprine, acetylcysteine and avoidance of contact with the parakeet, but there was an unfavorable response and the patient was subsequently referred for lung transplant. Conclusion: Chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis can present with the same clinical and radiological manifestations In this case, despite careful evaluation, no definite diagnosis could be achieved