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.