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.

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) that are known as diffuse parenchymal lung diseases (DPLDs) lead to the damage of alveolar epithelium and lung parenchyma, culminating in inflammation and widespread fibrosis. ILDs that account for more than 200 different pathologies can be divided into two groups: ILDs that have a known cause and those where the cause is unknown, classified as idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP). IIPs include idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP), cryptogenic organizing pneumonia (COP) known also as bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (BOOP), acute interstitial pneumonia (AIP), desquamative interstitial pneumonia (DIP), respiratory bronchiolitis-associated interstitial lung disease (RB-ILD), and lymphocytic interstitial pneumonia (LIP). In this review, our aim is to describe the pathogenic mechanisms that lead to the onset and progression of the different IIPs, starting from IPF as the most studied, in order to find both the common and standalone molecular and cellular key players among them. Finally, a deeper molecular and cellular characterization of different interstitial lung diseases without a known cause would contribute to giving a more accurate diagnosis to the patients, which would translate to a more effective treatment decision.

Background and objective Demographic and clinical variables, measured at baseline or over time, have been associated with mortality in subjects with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). We used data from the INPULSIS trials in subjects with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and the INBUILD trial in subjects with other progressive fibrosing ILDs to assess relationships between demographic/clinical variables and mortality. Methods The relationships between baseline variables and time‐varying covariates and time to death over 52 weeks were analysed using pooled data from the INPULSIS trials and, separately, the INBUILD trial using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results Over 52 weeks, 68/1061 (6.4%) and 33/663 (5.0%) subjects died in the INPULSIS and INBUILD trials, respectively. In the INPULSIS trials, a relative decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) >10% predicted within 12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 3.77) and age (HR 1.03 per 1‐year increase) were associated with increased risk of mortality, while baseline FVC % predicted (HR 0.97 per 1‐unit increase) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (HR 0.77 per 1‐unit increase) were associated with lower risk. In the INBUILD trial, a relative decline in FVC >10% predicted within 12 months (HR 2.60) and a usual interstitial pneumonia‐like fibrotic pattern on HRCT (HR 2.98) were associated with increased risk of mortality, while baseline DLCO % predicted (HR 0.95 per 1‐unit increase) was associated with lower risk. Conclusion These data support similarity in the course of lung injury between IPF and other progressive fibrosing ILDs and the value of FVC decline as a predictor of mortality.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease characterized by chronic symmetrical erosive synovitis and extra-articular manifestations, including interstitial lung disease (ILD), whose treatment is nowadays challenging due to high infectious risk and possible pulmonary iatrogenic toxicity. Janus kinase inhibitors, namely, tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, are the latest drug class for the treatment of RA with a good safety profile. We present the case of a patient with RA-ILD successfully treated with tofacitinib. A 52-year-old man was referred to our multidisciplinary clinic for rheumatic and pulmonary diseases for an active erosive seropositive RA and progressive ILD. Previous treatments were GC, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, etanercept, withdrawn after ILD detection, and tocilizumab, discontinued due to relapsing infections. After our evaluation, we proposed rituximab in addition to low-dose GC and hydroxychloroquine, ineffective on joint involvement. Therefore, we proposed tofacitinib which allowed us to control joint involvement, stabilize ILD improving respiratory symptoms, and manage the frequent infectious episodes that occurred initially. The short half-life and rapid-acting of tofacitinib are two helpful characteristics regarding this aspect. Despite limited data from randomized trials and real-life, tofacitinib could represent a safe therapeutic option for RA-ILD patients. Longitudinal studies are required to confirm this encouraging report.

Background and objective: In clinical practice, a working diagnosis of IPF may be performed to provide effective antifibrotic treatment to patients who cannot undergo SLB. In this study, we compared the disease course across IPF diagnostic categories in a real-life clinical setting to clarify the appropriateness of a working diagnosis of IPF and treatment initiation in these patients. Methods: Longitudinal data from IPF patients receiving antifibrotic treatment (pirfenidone or nintedanib) were retrospectively collected at three tertiary centres in Italy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare time to death and to a composite endpoint of disease progression between two diagnostic subgroups, that is, patients with UIP on HRCT and/or SLB, and patients with possible UIP and no histological confirmation. Results: A total of 249 IPF patients were included in the analysis. Among patients with a possible UIP pattern on HRCT, 41 (55%) were prescribed antifibrotic treatment (either nintedanib or pirfenidone) despite absence of histological confirmation. This group demonstrated similar mortality and disease progression as compared to patients with a definite diagnosis of IPF as per diagnostic guidelines (log-rank test P = 0.771 and P = 0.139, respectively). Such findings were confirmed on multivariate analysis (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.49-2.89, P = 0.7 for death; HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 0.83-2.44, P = 0.201 for disease progression). Conclusion: In patients receiving antifibrotics following a working diagnosis of IPF, disease progression rates were similar to patients with a confident diagnosis of IPF according to consensus guidelines, supporting the rationale for treatment initiation in these patients by expert multidisciplinary teams.