Search

Objectives Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) are immunomodulatory treatments in interstitial lung disease (ILD). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of MMF or AZA on pulmonary function in ILD.Design Population included any ILD diagnosis, intervention included MMF or AZA treatment, outcome was delta change from baseline in per cent predicted forced vital capacity (%FVC) and gas transfer (diffusion lung capacity of carbon monoxide, %DLco). The primary endpoint compared outcomes relative to placebo comparator, the secondary endpoint assessed outcomes in treated groups only.Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies were included. No language restrictions were applied. Retrospective studies and studies with high-dose concomitant steroids were excluded.Data synthesis The systematic search was performed on 9 May. Meta-analyses according to drug and outcome were specified with random effects, I2 evaluated heterogeneity and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evaluated certainty of evidence. Primary endpoint analysis was restricted to RCT design, secondary endpoint included subgroup analysis according to prospective observational or RCT design.Results A total of 2831 publications were screened, 12 were suitable for quantitative synthesis. Three MMF RCTs were included with no significant effect on the primary endpoints (%FVC 2.94, 95% CI −4.00 to 9.88, I2=79.3%; %DLco −2.03, 95% CI −4.38 to 0.32, I2=0.0%). An overall 2.03% change from baseline in %FVC (95% CI 0.65 to 3.42, I2=0.0%) was observed in MMF, and RCT subgroup summary estimated a 4.42% change from baseline in %DLCO (95% CI 2.05 to 6.79, I2=0.0%). AZA studies were limited. All estimates were considered very low certainty evidence.Conclusions There were limited RCTs of MMF or AZA and their benefit in ILD was of very low certainty. MMF may support preservation of pulmonary function, yet confidence in the effect was weak. To support high certainty evidence, RCTs should be designed to directly assess MMF efficacy in ILD.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023423223.

Abstract Approved therapies for the treatment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) mediate pulmonary vascular vasodilatation by targeting distinct biological pathways. International guidelines recommend that patients with an inadequate response to dual therapy with a phosphodiesterase type‐5 inhibitor (PDE5i) and endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA), are recommended to either intensify oral therapy by adding a selective prostacyclin receptor (IP) agonist (selexipag), or switching from PDE5i to a soluble guanylate‐cyclase stimulator (sGCS; riociguat). The clinical equipoise between these therapeutic choices provides the opportunity for evaluation of individualized therapeutic effects. Traditionally, invasive/hospital‐based investigations are required to comprehensively assess disease severity and demonstrate treatment benefits. Regulatory‐approved, minimally invasive monitors enable equivalent measurements to be obtained while patients are at home. In this 2 × 2 randomized crossover trial, patients with PAH established on guideline‐recommended dual therapy and implanted with CardioMEMS™ (a wireless pulmonary artery sensor) and ConfirmRx™ (an insertable cardiac rhythm monitor), will receive ERA + sGCS, or PDEi + ERA + IP agonist. The study will evaluate clinical efficacy via established clinical investigations and remote monitoring technologies, with remote data relayed through regulatory‐approved online clinical portals. The primary aim will be the change in right ventricular systolic volume measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from baseline to maximal tolerated dose with each therapy. Using data from MRI and other outcomes, including hemodynamics, physical activity, physiological measurements, quality of life, and side effect reporting, we will determine whether remote technology facilitates early evaluation of clinical efficacy, and investigate intra‐patient efficacy of the two treatment approaches.

Objectives This study was conducted to evaluate the ability of risk assessment to predict healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), costs, treatments, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival in patients diagnosed with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).Design Retrospective observational study.Setting Pulmonary hypertension referral centre in the UK.Participants Adults diagnosed with CTEPH between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2019 were included. Cohorts were retrospectively defined for operated patients (received pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA)) and not operated; further subgroups were defined based on risk score (low, intermediate or high risk for 1-year mortality) at diagnosis.Primary and secondary outcome measures Demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, treatment patterns, HRQoL, HCRU, costs and survival outcomes were analysed.Results Overall, 683 patients were analysed (268 (39%) operated; 415 (61%) not operated). Most patients in the operated and not-operated cohorts were intermediate risk (63%; 53%) or high risk (23%; 31%) at diagnosis. Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients had higher HCRU and costs than low-risk patients. Outpatient and accident and emergency visits were lower postdiagnosis for both cohorts and all risk groups versus prediagnosis. HRQoL scores noticeably improved in the operated cohort post-PEA, and less so in the not-operated cohort at 6–18 months postdiagnosis. Survival at 5 years was 83% (operated) and 49% (not operated) and was lower for intermediate-risk and high-risk patients compared with low-risk patients.Conclusions Findings from this study support that risk assessment at diagnosis is prognostic for mortality in patients with CTEPH. Low-risk patients have better survival and HRQoL and lower HCRU and costs compared with intermediate-risk and high-risk patients.