Background The INBUILD trial investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib versus placebo in patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We aimed to establish the effects of nintedanib in subgroups based on ILD diagnosis. Methods The INBUILD trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial done at 153 sites in 15 countries. Participants had an investigator-diagnosed fibrosing ILD other than IPF, with chest imaging features of fibrosis of more than 10% extent on high resolution CT (HRCT), forced vital capacity (FVC) of 45% or more predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLco) of at least 30% and less than 80% predicted. Participants fulfilled protocol-defined criteria for ILD progression in the 24 months before screening, despite management considered appropriate in clinical practice for the individual ILD. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 by means of a pseudorandom number generator to receive nintedanib 150 mg twice daily or placebo for at least 52 weeks. Participants, investigators, and other personnel involved in the trial and analysis were masked to treatment assignment until after database lock. In this subgroup analysis, we assessed the rate of decline in FVC (mL/year) over 52 weeks in patients who received at least one dose of nintedanib or placebo in five prespecified subgroups based on the ILD diagnoses documented by the investigators: hypersensitivity pneumonitis, autoimmune ILDs, idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia, unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, and other ILDs. The trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02999178.

Insufficient hours of sleep were prevalent in this population. The Spanish version of the PDSS was a reliable tool in middle-school-aged children. Reports of snoring or witnessed apneas and daytime sleepiness as measured by PDSS were independent predictors of poor academic performance.

Background Mepolizumab and omalizumab are treatments for distinct but overlapping severe asthma phenotypes. Objective To assess if patients eligible for both biologics but not optimally controlled with omalizumab experience improved asthma control when switched directly to mepolizumab. Methods OSMO was a multicenter, open‐label, single‐arm, 32‐week trial in patients with ≥2 asthma exacerbations in the year prior to enrollment, despite receiving high‐dose inhaled corticosteroids and other controller(s), plus omalizumab (≥4 months). At baseline, patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL (or ≥300 cells/µL in the prior year) and an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)‐5 score ≥1.5 discontinued omalizumab and immediately commenced mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Endpoints included change from baseline in ACQ‐5 score (primary), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and the proportions of ACQ‐5 and SGRQ responders, all at Week 32, and the annualized exacerbation rate over the study period. Results At Week 32 (intent‐to‐treat population [n = 145]), the least squares (LS) mean changes (standard error [SE]) in ACQ‐5 and SGRQ total scores were −1.45 (0.107) and −19.0 (1.64) points; with 77% and 79% of patients achieving the minimum clinically important differences (ACQ‐5: ≥0.5 points; SGRQ: ≥4 points), respectively. The annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations was 1.18 events/year, a 64% reduction from 3.26 events/year during the previous year. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were consistent with previous trials. Conclusion After directly switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab, patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma experienced clinically significant improvements in asthma control, health status, and exacerbation rate, with no tolerability issues reported.

A proportion of patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are at risk of developing a progressive-fibrosing phenotype, which is associated with a deterioration in lung function and early mortality. In addition to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), fibrosing ILDs that may present a progressive phenotype include idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, connective tissue disease-associated ILDs, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, ILDs related to other occupational exposures and sarcoidosis. Corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive therapies are sometimes prescribed to patients with these diseases. However, this treatment regimen may not be effective, adequate on its own or well tolerated, suggesting that there is a pressing need for efficacious and better tolerated therapies. Currently, the only approved treatments to slow disease progression in patients with IPF are nintedanib and pirfenidone. Similarities in pathobiological mechanisms leading to fibrosis between IPF and other ILDs that may present a progressive-fibrosing phenotype provide a rationale to suggest that nintedanib and pirfenidone may be therapeutic options for patients with the latter diseases.This review provides an overview of the therapeutic options currently available for patients with fibrosing ILDs, including fibrosing ILDs that may present a progressive phenotype, and explores the status of the randomised controlled trials that are underway to determine the efficacy and safety of nintedanib and pirfenidone.

Aims: Data on differences in clinical characteristics and management of COPD in different countries and settings are limited. We aimed to characterize the profi le of patients with COPD in a number of countries and their treatment in order to evaluate adherence to recommendations of international guidelines. Method: This was an observational, international, cross-sectional study on patients with physician-diagnosed COPD. Demographic and clinical characteristics, risk factors, and treatment were collected by their physician via an internet web-based questionnaire developed for the study. Results: A total of 77 investigators from 17 countries provided data on 833 patients. The countries with the highest number of patients included were: Argentina (128), Ecuador (134), Spain (162), and Hong Kong (153). Overall, 79.3% were men and 81% former smokers, with a mean FEV 1 = 42.7%, ranging from 34.3% in Hong Kong to 58.8% in Ecuador. Patients reported a mean of 1.6 exacerbations the previous year, with this frequency being signifi cantly and negatively correlated with FEV 1 (%) (r = -0.256; p Ͻ 0.0001). Treatment with short-acting bronchodilators and theophyllines was more frequent in Ecuador and Hong Kong compared with Spain and Argentina, and in patients belonging to lower socioeconomic levels (p Ͻ 0.0001 for all comparisons). Inadequacy of treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and theophyllines was high, with signifi cant differences among countries. Conclusions: Differences in the clinical characteristics and management of COPD were signifi cant across countries. Adherence to international guidelines appears to be low. Efforts should be made to disseminate and adapt guidelines to the socioeconomic reality of different settings.

This document constitutes a summary of the Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) prepared at the initiative of the Latin American Thoracic Society (ALAT). Due to new evidence in the treatment of severe asthma, it was agreed to select 6 clinical questions, and the corresponding recommendations are provided herein. After considering the quality of the evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable impacts and the feasibility and acceptance of procedures, the following recommendations were established: 1) We do not recommend the use of an ICS plus formoterol as rescue medication in the treatment of severe asthma. 2) We suggest performing many more high-quality randomised studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tiotropium in patients with severe asthma. 3) Omalizumab is recommended in patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma with serum IgE levels above 30 IU. 4) Anti-IL-5 drugs are recommended in patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (cut-off values above 150 cells·µL−1 for mepolizumab and above 400 cells·µL−1 for reslizumab). 5) Benralizumab is recommended in adult patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (cut-off values above 300 cells·µL−1). 6) Dupilumab is recommended in adult patients with severe uncontrolled allergic and eosinophilic asthma and in adult patients with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma.

No abstract

ImportanceThere is a major need for effective, well-tolerated treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat in patients with IPF.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe 2 identically designed, phase 3, randomized clinical trials, ISABELA 1 and ISABELA 2, were conducted in Africa, Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America (26 countries). A total of 1306 patients with IPF were randomized (525 patients at 106 sites in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients at 121 sites in ISABELA 2). Enrollment began in November 2018 in both trials and follow-up was completed early due to study termination on April 12, 2021, for ISABELA 1 and on March 30, 2021, for ISABELA 2.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 600 mg of oral ziritaxestat, 200 mg of ziritaxestat, or placebo once daily in addition to local standard of care (pirfenidone, nintedanib, or neither) for at least 52 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the annual rate of decline for forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 52. The key secondary outcomes were disease progression, time to first respiratory-related hospitalization, and change from baseline in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate poorer health-related quality of life).ResultsAt the time of study termination, 525 patients were randomized in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients in ISABELA 2 (mean age: 70.0 [SD, 7.2] years in ISABELA 1 and 69.8 [SD, 7.1] years in ISABELA 2; male: 82.4% and 81.2%, respectively). The trials were terminated early after an independent data and safety monitoring committee concluded that the benefit to risk profile of ziritaxestat no longer supported their continuation. Ziritaxestat did not improve the annual rate of FVC decline vs placebo in either study. In ISABELA 1, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was –124.6 mL (95% CI, −178.0 to −71.2 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs –147.3 mL (95% CI, −199.8 to −94.7 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 22.7 mL [95% CI, −52.3 to 97.6 mL]), and –173.9 mL (95% CI, −225.7 to −122.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, −26.7 mL [95% CI, −100.5 to 47.1 mL]). In ISABELA 2, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was –173.8 mL (95% CI, −209.2 to −138.4 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs –176.6 mL (95% CI, −211.4 to −141.8 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 2.8 mL [95% CI, −46.9 to 52.4 mL]) and –174.9 mL (95% CI, −209.5 to −140.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, 1.7 mL [95% CI, −47.4 to 50.8 mL]). There was no benefit with ziritaxestat vs placebo for the key secondary outcomes. In ISABELA 1, all-cause mortality was 8.0% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 4.6% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 6.3% with placebo; in ISABELA 2, it was 9.3% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 8.5% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 4.7% with placebo.Conclusions and RelevanceZiritaxestat did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo in patients with IPF receiving standard of care treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib or in those not receiving standard of care treatment.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03711162 and NCT03733444