Search

Genetic predisposition to pulmonary fibrosis has been confirmed by the discovery of several gene mutations that cause pulmonary fibrosis. Although genetic sequencing of familial pulmonary fibrosis (FPF) cases is embedded in routine clinical practice in several countries, many centres have yet to incorporate genetic sequencing within interstitial lung disease (ILD) services and proper international consensus has not yet been established. An international and multidisciplinary expert Task Force (pulmonologists, geneticists, paediatrician, pathologist, genetic counsellor, patient representative and librarian) reviewed the literature between 1945 and 2022, and reached consensus for all of the following questions: 1) Which patients may benefit from genetic sequencing and clinical counselling? 2) What is known of the natural history of FPF? 3) Which genes are usually tested? 4) What is the evidence for telomere length measurement? 5) What is the role of common genetic variants (polymorphisms) in the diagnostic workup? 6) What are the optimal treatment options for FPF? 7) Which family members are eligible for genetic sequencing? 8) Which clinical screening and follow-up parameters may be considered in family members? Through a robust review of the literature, the Task Force offers a statement on genetic sequencing, clinical management and screening of patients with FPF and their relatives. This proposal may serve as a basis for a prospective evaluation and future international recommendations., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: R. Borie reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, consulting fees from Sanofi, lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and Sanofi, and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. K. Antoniou reports consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline, lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Chiesi, Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. F. Bonella reports lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Fujirebio, Galapagos NV and Roche, travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, participation on advisory boards with Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Fujirebio, Galapagos NV, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche and Takeda, outside the submitted work. B. Crestani reports grants from BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, consulting fees from Apellis, lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Chiesi, and is in receipt of equipment from Translate Bio, outside the submitted work. A. Froidure reports grants and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline, and travel support from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. L. Galvin reports travel support from the European Lung Foundation, European Respiratory Society and European Pulmonary Fibrosis Federation, leadership roles with the European Pulmonary Fibrosis Federation, Irish Lung Fibrosis Association, European Lung Foundation and European Reference Network On Rare Respiratory Diseases, outside the submitted work. M. Griese reports grants and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. M. Molina-Molina reports grants from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, consulting fees from Esteve-Teijin, Ferrer, Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, and lecture honoraria from Chiesi, Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. V. Poletti reports lecture honoraria from AMBU, Boehringer Ingelheim, ERBE and Roche, outside the submitted work. E. Renzoni reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and Novartis, outside the submitted work. C.H.M. van Moorsel reports grants from the European Respiratory Society supporting the present manuscript, grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, and a leadership role as co-chair of the European Respiratory Society Task Force for genetics in pulmonary fibrosis, outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2023. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Background: The progressive course of pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) is observed with variable prevalence in different entities of fibrosing interstitial lung disease (fILD). PPF is characterised by worsening respiratory symptoms, declining lung function and increasing extent of fibrosis on high-resolution computer tomography. In Germany, data are limited on the characteristics and management of such patients., Methods/design: INSIGHTS-ILD is a prospective observational longitudinal registry designed to describe characteristics, management and course of newly diagnosed (incident) and prevalent patients with fILD on the long term. The registry uses a non-probability sampling approach to collect data on characteristics, therapeutic interventions, health-related quality of life and health economic parameters. It is planned to include 900 patients in ambulatory care in about 30 expert sites over three years. The study has been initiated in December 2021, and currently (January 2023) follows 360 patients., Discussion: The registry is expected to provide much-needed data on the characteristics, management, and trajectories of patients fILD in Germany. The start of the study comes at a time when new treatment options are available for PPF. We hypothesize that PPF represents a broad clinical phenotype that is differentially influenced by inflammatory and fibrotic pathomechanisms that need to be treated with anti-inflammatory and/or anti-fibrotic treatment strategies. This registry will allow comparisons with other countries. Gap analyses based on current guidelines for management of these patients will be possible. Trial registration DRKS00027389 (registered on 7.12.2021), BfArM NIS 7562., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose of Review: Unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (ILD) comprises a subset of ILDs which cannot be classified according to the current diagnostic framework. This is a likely a heterogeneous group of diseases rather than a single entity and it is poorly defined and hence problematic for prognosis and therapy., Recent Findings: With increased treatment options for progressive fibrosing ILD it is increasingly relevant to correctly categorise ILD., Summary: This review article will summarise the definition and reasons for a diagnosis of unclassifiable ILD, the current management options and possible future approaches to improve diagnosis and differentiation within this broad subset. Finally, we will describe the implications of the labelling of unclassifiable ILD in clinical practice and research and whether the term 'unclassified' should be used, implying a less definitive diagnosis., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pirfenidone has been shown to slow disease progression in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, there are few treatment options for progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs)) other than IPF. In view of the pathomechanistic and clinical similarities between IPF and other progressive fibrotic ILDs, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in patients with four non-IPF progressive fibrotic ILDs., Methods: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel phase 2b trial (RELIEF) in 17 centres with expertise in ILD in Germany. Eligible participants were patients aged 18-80 years with progressive fibrotic ILD due to four diagnoses: collagen or vascular diseases (ie, connective tissue disease-associated ILDs), fibrotic non-specific interstitial pneumonia, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or asbestos-induced lung fibrosis. Other eligibility criteria included a forced vital capacity (FVC) of 40-90% predicted, a diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide of 10-90% predicted, and an annual decline of FVC of at least 5% predicted despite conventional therapy, based on at least three measurements within 6-24 months before enrolment. Patients who had received any previous antifibrotic therapy were excluded. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either oral pirfenidone (267 mg three times per day in week 1, 534 mg three times per day in week 2, and 801 mg three times per day thereafter) or matched placebo, added to their ongoing medication. Randomisation was done centrally using permuted block randomisation with varying block sizes stratified by the four diagnostic groups. Patients, investigators, statisticians, monitors, and the study coordinator were masked to treatment assignment until database closure. The placebo-controlled study period was 48 weeks (including up-titration). The primary endpoint was absolute change in percentage of predicted FVC (FVC % predicted) from baseline to week 48 in the intention-to-treat population, with imputation of missing data by the smallest sum of squared differences and attribution of deceased patients to the lowest rank in a rank ANCOVA model. Additionally, we did linear mixed-model repeated measures slope analyses of FVC % predicted longitudinal data over the course of the study as a prespecified sensitivity analysis and post-hoc sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population using imputation methods of last observation carried forward [LOCF] and a regression-based multiple imputation procedure. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with EudraCT 2014-000861-32; DRKS00009822 and is no longer recruiting., Findings: Between April 5, 2016, and Oct 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 127 patients to treatment: 64 to pirfenidone, 63 to placebo. After 127 patients had been randomised, the study was prematurely terminated on the basis of an interim analysis for futility triggered by slow recruitment. After 48 weeks and in the overall population of 127 patients, rank ANCOVA with diagnostic group included as a factor showed a significantly lower decline in FVC % predicted in the pirfenidone group compared with placebo (p=0·043); the result was similar when the model was stratified by diagnostic group (p=0·042). A significant treatment effect was also observed when applying the LOCF and multiple imputation methods to analyses of the primary endpoint. The median difference (Hodges-Lehmann estimate) between pirfenidone and placebo groups for the primary endpoint was 1·69 FVC % predicted (95% CI -0·65 to 4·03). In the linear mixed-model repeated measures slope analysis of FVC % predicted, the estimated difference between treatment and placebo groups from baseline to week 48 was 3·53 FVC % predicted (95% CI 0·21 to 6·86) with imputation of deaths as prespecified, or 2·79 FVC % predicted (95% CI 0·03 to 5·54) without imputation. One death (non-respiratory) occurred in the pirfenidone group (2%) and five deaths (three of which were respiratory) occurred in the placebo group (8%). The most frequent serious adverse events in both groups were infections and infestations (five [8%] in the pirfenidone group, ten [16%] in the placebo group); general disorders including disease worsening (two [3%] in the pirfenidone group, seven [11%] in the placebo group); and cardiac disorders (one ([2%] in the pirfenidone group, 5 [8%] in the placebo group). Adverse events (grade 3-4) of nausea (two patients on pirfenidone, two on placebo), dyspnoea (one patient on pirfenidone, one on placebo), and diarrhoea (one patient on pirfenidone) were also observed., Interpretation: In view of the premature study termination, results should be interpreted with care. Nevertheless, our data suggest that in patients with fibrotic ILDs other than IPF who deteriorate despite conventional therapy, adding pirfenidone to existing treatment might attenuate disease progression as measured by decline in FVC., Funding: German Center for Lung Research, Roche Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JB reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Biogen, Galapagos, Promedior, Roche, and the German Center for Lung Research (DZL). SB reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, Bayer, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Merck Serono; and non-financial support from Teva, Gilead, Lucane Pharma, Actelion, CSL Behring, and Vertex. FB reports personal fees for consultancy, lecturing, and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche. MC reports grants from DZL. JHF reports personal fees, grants, and non-financial support from Roche; and personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim. AG reports grants from DZL, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche. MH reports grants from Actelion; honoraria for lectures from Actelion, Bayer Healthcare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, and Roche; honoraria for advisory boards from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, and Roche; and honoraria for clinical trials from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. NKn reports personal fees from Roche. DK reports personal fees from Roche; and personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim. MK reports grants from DZL; and grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche. AP reports grants from DZL; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, Pliant, Chiesi Pharmaceuticals, and Nitto Denko; personal fees from Amgen; and non-financial support from Galapagos. KFR reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca; and personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche, and Chiesi Pharmaceuticals. TW reports grants from Roche; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and Novartis. HWil reports personal fees for lectures or consultations from Actelion–Janssen, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche. HWir reports lecture fees from Roche. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), which can arise from a broad spectrum of distinct aetiologies, can manifest as a pulmonary complication of an underlying autoimmune and connective tissue disease (CTD-ILD), such as rheumatoid arthritis-ILD and systemic sclerosis (SSc-ILD). Patients with clinically distinct ILDs, whether CTD-related or not, can exhibit a pattern of common clinical disease behaviour (declining lung function, worsening respiratory symptoms and higher mortality), attributable to progressive fibrosis in the lungs. In recent years, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor nintedanib has demonstrated efficacy and safety in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), SSc-ILD and a broad range of other fibrosing ILDs with a progressive phenotype, including those associated with CTDs. Data from phase II studies also suggest that pirfenidone, which has a different-yet largely unknown-mechanism of action, may also have activity in other fibrosing ILDs with a progressive phenotype, in addition to its known efficacy in IPF. Collectively, these studies add weight to the hypothesis that, irrespective of the original clinical diagnosis of ILD, a progressive fibrosing phenotype may arise from common, underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of fibrosis involving pathways associated with the targets of nintedanib and, potentially, pirfenidone. However, despite the early proof of concept provided by these clinical studies, very little is known about the mechanistic commonalities and differences between ILDs with a progressive phenotype. In this review, we explore the biological and genetic mechanisms that drive fibrosis, and identify the missing evidence needed to provide the rationale for further studies that use the progressive phenotype as a target population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PS reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche and PPM Services; and personal fees from Red X Pharma, Galapagos and Chiesi outside the submitted work. His wife is an employee of Novartis. OD reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Mitsubishi; personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer; and personal fees from Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Anamar, Amgen, Catenion, CSL Behring, ChemomAb, Ergonex, GSK, Inventiva, Italfarmaco, iQone, iQvia, Medac, Medscape, Menarini, Mepha, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Target BioScience, UCB, Baecon Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Curzion Pharmaceuticals and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. In addition, OD has a patent US8247389, EP2331143 issued. CJR reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Hoffmann-La Roche, outside the submitted work. AT reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BI Hellas, during the conduct of the study; and other from Roche, outside the submitted work. In addition, AT has a patent for inhaled or aerosolised delivery of thyroid hormone to the lung as a novel therapeutic agent in fibrotic lung diseases issued. JSL reports grants from NIH and Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Celgene and Genentech, outside the submitted work. FB reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees and non-financial support from Savara, Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche; and personal fees from Galapagos, outside the submitted work. DB reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BI Hellas and other from Roche, outside the submitted work. A-MH-V reports personal fees, grants, non-financial support and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and non-financial support from Actelion, personal fees from Bayer and Roche, outside the submitted work. BC reports personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and BMS; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche; and personal fees from Genzyme, outside the submitted work. ELM reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (IPPFE) was recognized as a rare new entity. We report the case of a 63 years old female suffering from progressive dyspnea and dry cough for three years. Two years before admission to our hospital, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) was diagnosed in another hospital and treatment with prednisolone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) was commenced. At admission HRCT showed upper lobe dominant fibrosis and associated pleural thickening. Surgical biopsies were re-evaluated and revealed fibroelastosis with pleural thickening and a probable UIP pattern, consistent with idiopathic PPFE. Treatment with pirfenidone was initiated due to progression under prednisolone and NAC. Upper lobe predominant pleural thickening with associated subpleural fibrotic changes should raise suspicion of PPFE., (Copyright © 2017 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a chronic progressive lung disease with poor prognosis. The IFIGENIA trial showed that antioxidative therapy with N-acetylcysteine versus placebo for patients under treatment with prednisone plus azathioprine significantly slowed the deterioration of pulmonary function after 12 months. A number of other drugs have recently been evaluated in large multicenter placebo-controlled trials. Etanercept, interferon-γ, bosentan, ambrisentan, imatinib, and sildenafil did not show efficacy. The antifibrotic active ingredient pirfenidone is the first drug approved for the treatment of adult patients with mild to moderate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the European Union. Approval was based on the results of 4 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials including more than 1,100 patients. Pirfenidone slowed the decline in lung function and reduced the risk of disease progression. Side effects include gastrointestinal discomfort, skin reactions, including photosensitivity, and rarely increased liver enzymes.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between SP-D and KL-6 serum concentrations and the extent of interstitial lung involvement, as measured by a quantitative HRCT score and the functional impairment, in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Moreover we analysed the association between these lung-specific biomarkers and skin involvement, anti-Scl-70 antibody titres and an index of disease activity., Methods: Serum SP-D, KL-6 and anti-Scl-70 concentrations were determined by ELISA in 25 SSc patients. Disease activity and lung function parameters were assessed, and the extent of ILD was measured by a HRCT score., Results: SP-D and KL-6 concentrations were higher in patients with SSc and lung fibrosis than in healthy controls. KL-6 correlated positively with the HRCT-fibrosis score (r=0.68, p<0.001), SP-D showed a weaker correlation (r=0.44, p=0.025). Increased KL-6 concentrations were associated with decreased DLCO and decreased FVC in SSc patients, SP-D showed no association. Furthermore KL-6, but not SP-D, showed a strong association with skin involvement as expressed by the modified Rodnan skin score (r=0.71, p<0.0001) and a disease activity index (r=0.73, p<0.0001)., Conclusion: KL-6 is more strongly associated than SP-D with the HRCT-fibrosis score, and, different from SP-D, it correlates with skin involvement and disease activity. We suggest that KL-6 may be a useful biomarker in the assessment of scleroderma patients.

Background: Angiogenesis-angiostasis balance and leukocyte recruitment are influenced by different concentrations of distinct chemokines., Objective: To investigate the relative contribution of angiogenic and angiostatic CXC chemokines to the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and granulomatous lung diseases, we examined the in vitro production of an angiogenic chemokine (IL-8), and 2 angiostatic chemokines (IP-10 and MIG) by alveolar macrophages., Methods: Alveolar macrophages from 16 patients with granulomatous lung diseases [8 with sarcoidosis, 8 with extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EAA)], 16 patients with IPF, and 8 control subjects were cultured for 24 h. IL-8, IL-18, IP-10 and MIG in the culture supernatants were measured by a fluorescent bead-based multiplex technique., Results: In IPF patients, IL-8 was increased and correlated with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) neutrophils, whereas the levels of IP-10 and MIG were normal. In sarcoidosis and EAA patients, IL-8, IP-10, and MIG were all increased and IP-10 and MIG correlated with IL-18, a Th1 cytokine, and the percentage and number of BAL lymphocytes., Conclusions: The difference in the expression of CXC chemokines and a Th1 cytokine may contribute to the different immunopathogenesis, clinical course and responsiveness to treatment of these diseases., (Copyright © 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.)