Highlights on Future Treatments of IPF: Clues and Pitfalls.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an interstitial lung disease characterized by irreversible scarring of lung tissue, leading to death. Despite recent advancements in understanding its pathophysiology, IPF remains elusive, and therapeutic options are limited and non-curative. This review aims to synthesize the latest research developments, focusing on the molecular mechanisms driving the disease and on the related emerging treatments. Unfortunately, several phase 2 studies showing promising preliminary results did not meet the primary endpoints in the subsequent phase 3, underlying the complexity of the disease and the need for new integrated endpoints. IPF remains a challenging condition with a complex interplay of genetic, epigenetic, and pathophysiological factors. Ongoing research into the molecular keystones of IPF is critical for the development of targeted therapies that could potentially stop the progression of the disease. Future directions include personalized medicine approaches, artificial intelligence integration, growth in genetic insights, and novel drug targets.

Pharmacological treatment in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: current issues and future perspectives

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) represents a fibrotic interstitial lung disease characterized by uncertain etiology and poor prognosis. Over the years, the path to effective treatments has been marked by a series of advances and setbacks. The introduction of approved antifibrotic drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, marked a pivotal moment in the management of IPF. However, despite these advances, these drugs are not curative, although they can slow the natural progression of the disease. The history of drug therapy for IPF goes together with the increased understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms underlying the disease. Based on that, current research efforts continue to explore new therapies, possible personalized treatment strategies, drug combinations, and potential biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis. In this review, we outline the route that led to the discover of the first effective therapies, ongoing clinical trials, and future directions in the search for more effective treatments.

Use of Remdesivir in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Pneumonia: Effect on the Hypoxic and Inflammatory State.

Remdesivir is one of the most attractive options for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on the hypoxic and inflammatory state in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. We retrospectively enrolled 112 patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia, requiring low-flow oxygen, 57 treated with remdesivir plus standard of care (SoC) and 55 treated only with SoC that were similar for demographic and clinical data. We evaluated changes in hypoxemia and inflammatory markers at admission (Day 0) and after 5 days of treatment (Day 5) and the clinical course of the disease. From Day 0 to Day 5, the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (P/F) increased from 222 ± 62 to 274 ± 97 (p < 0.0001) in the remdesivir group and decreased from 223 ± 62 to 183 ± 76 (p < 0.05) in the SoC group. Interleukine-6 levels decreased in the remdesivir (45.9 to 17.5 pg/mL, p < 0.05) but not in the SoC group. Remdesivir reduced the need for ventilatory support and the length of hospitalization. In conclusion, compared to standard care, remdesivir rapidly improves hypoxia and inflammation, causing a better course of the disease in moderate to severe COVID-19.

An update on lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Over the last three years, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented number of novel diagnostic tests have been developed. Assays to evaluate the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 have been widely considered as part of the control strategy. The lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), to detect both IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2, has been widely studied as a point-of-care (POC) test. Compared to laboratory tests, LFIAs are faster, cheaper and user-friendly, thus available also in areas with low economic resources. Soon after the onset of the pandemic, numerous kits for rapid antibody detection were put on the market with an emergency use authorization. However, since then, scientists have tried to better define the accuracy of these tests and their usefulness in different contexts. In fact, while during the first phase of the pandemic LFIAs for antibody detection were auxiliary to molecular tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19, successively these tests became a tool of seroprevalence surveillance to address infection control policies. When in 2021 a massive vaccination campaign was implemented worldwide, the interest in LFIA reemerged due to the need to establish the extent and the longevity of immunization in the vaccinated population and to establish priorities to guide health policies in low-income countries with limited access to vaccines. Here, we summarize the accuracy, the advantages and limits of LFIAs as POC tests for antibody detection, highlighting the efforts that have been made to improve this technology over the last few years.

Histogram-based analysis in progressive pulmonary fibrosis: relationships between pulmonary functional tests and HRCT indexes.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate relationships between histogram-based high-resolution CT (HRCT) indexes and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) in interstitial lung diseases. METHODS: Forty-nine patients having baseline and 1-year HRCT examinations and PFTs were investigated. Histogram-based HRCT indexes were calculated; strength of associations with PFTs was investigated using Pearson correlation. Patients were divided into progressive and non-progressive groups. HRCT indexes were compared between the two groups using the U-test; within each group, baseline and follow-up Wilcoxon analysis was performed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used for predicting disease progression. RESULTS: At baseline, moderate correlations were observed considering kurtosis and diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (r = 0.54) and skewness and DLCO (r = 0.559), whereas weak but significant correlations were observed between forced vital capacity and kurtosis (r = 0.368, p = 0.009) and forced vital capacity and skewness (r = 0.391, p = 0.005). Negative correlations were reported between HAA% and PFTs (from r = -0.418 up to r = -0.507). At follow-up correlations between quantitative indexes and PFTs were also moderate, except for high attenuation area (HAA)% -700 and DLCO (r = -0.397). In progressive subgroup, moderate and strong correlations were found between DLCO and HRCT indexes (r = 0.595 kurtosis, r = 0.672 skewness, r=-0. 598 HAA% -600 and r = -0.626 HAA% -700). At follow-up, we observed significant differences between the two groups for kurtosis (p = 0.029), HAA% -600 (p = 0.04) and HAA% -700 (p = 0.02). To predict progression, ROC analysis reported sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 51.9% using a threshold value of δ kurtosis <0.03. CONCLUSION: At one year, moderate correlations suggest that progression could be assessed through HRCT quantification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study promotes histogram-based HRCT indexes in the assessment of progressive pulmonary fibrosis.