Understanding the determinants of health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease.

RATIONALE: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is impaired among patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). Little is understood about HRQL in specific subtypes of ILD. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize and identify clinical determinants of HRQL among patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and compare them to patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). METHODS: We identified patients with a diagnosis of RA-ILD and IPF from an ongoing longitudinal cohort of ILD patients. HRQL was measured at their baseline visit using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), versions 1 and 2. Regression models were used to characterize and understand the relationship between selected baseline clinical covariates, the physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: RA-ILD patients (n = 50) were more likely to be younger and female compared to IPF patients (n = 50). After controlling for age and pulmonary function, RA-ILD patients had a lower HRQL compared to IPF patients, as measured by the PCS (P = 0.03), with significant differences in two of four PCS domains - bodily pain (P < 0.01) and general health (P = 0.01). Clinical covariates most strongly associated with a lower PCS in RA-ILD patients compared to IPF patients were the presence of joint pain or stiffness and dyspnea severity (P < 0.01). Mental and emotional health, as measured by the MCS, was similar between RA-ILD and IPF patients. CONCLUSION: The physical components of HRQL appear worse in RA-ILD patients compared to IPF patients as measured by the PCS of the SF-36. Differences in the PCS of the SF-36 can be explained in part by dyspnea severity and joint symptoms among patients with RA-ILD.

Efficacy of pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with more preserved lung function.

This post hoc analysis examined the differences in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis disease progression and the effects of pirfenidone in patients stratified by more preserved versus less preserved baseline lung function status using forced vital capacity (FVC) or GAP (gender, age and physiology) index stage.Efficacy outcomes, i.e. FVC, 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and dyspnoea (University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD SOBQ)), were analysed at 12 months in patients randomised to pirfenidone 2403 mg·day(-1) or placebo in the pooled phase 3 CAPACITY/ASCEND population (n=1247), with subgroups stratified by baseline FVC ≥80% versus <80% or GAP stage I versus II-III. Treatment-by-subgroup interaction was tested based on a rank ANCOVA model; factors in the model included study, region, treatment, subgroup and treatment-by-subgroup interaction term.Patients with both more preserved (FVC ≥80% or GAP stage I) and less preserved (FVC <80% or GAP stage II-III) lung function at baseline demonstrated clinically significant disease progression at 12 months in terms of categorical decline in FVC, 6MWD and UCSD SOBQ. The magnitude of pirfenidone treatment effect was comparable between subgroups, regardless of whether lung function was classified using FVC or GAP index stage.These findings support the initiation of treatment with pirfenidone, irrespective of stage of baseline lung function in this patient population.

The need for patient-centred clinical research in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Patient-centredness is an accepted term and is perceived by healthcare professionals to be morally and ethically desirable. We are motivated by the belief that this approach will improve the patient-professional experience of the decision-making process and improve health outcomes. We acknowledge that patients, either as participants or as co-investigators, have positive contributions to make to research. As the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) community enters a new era of clinical research activity we consider that there is greater capacity for patient involvement and partnership.Patient involvement in research can be optimised through collaborations in the research design, study conduct, and dissemination. There is increasing interest in using patient- reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, and symptoms measures to inform decision-making and ensure patient perspectives are taken into account. PROs are an essential component of specialist IPF services, to monitor and improve care delivery and to measure and benchmark performance. In clinical trials, PROs can additionally be used to define entry criteria, evaluate efficacy of an intervention, and evaluate adverse events. We suggest that there is a much wider scope for including patient-centred PROs in clinical research and for creative thought in developing patient co-investigator roles.Participation in research activity requires highly refined decision-making processes, particularly in a condition such as IPF, which has an often unpredictable trajectory. The IPF research landscape has changed and the design and conduct of clinical trials in IPF requires some radical rethinking. It is accepted that involving patients in the role of co-investigators will impact the research questions we ask and result in study designs that are patient-centred. IPF clinical trials have been hindered by the lack of availability of validated, disease-specific questionnaires. A conservative approach appears to have been taken to the inclusion of generic symptom or quality of life measures as PRO endpoints. Thus, the impact of new drugs on the quality of life of research participants demonstrates only minimal benefit. It is time to refocus on a patient-centred approach with regards to the co-investigator role, PRO development, and research participants.