Nintedanib in Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax convened to update clinical practice guidelines for interstitial lung disease (ILD). Objective: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate existing ILD literature to determine whether patients with progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) should be treated with the antifibrotic nintedanib. Data Sources: A literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through December 2020 for studies using nintedanib to treat patients with PPF. Data Extraction: Mortality, disease progression, and adverse event data were extracted, and meta-analyses performed when possible. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. Synthesis: Two relevant studies were selected. The annual decline in forced vital capacity was less in the nintedanib arm in the overall study population (mean difference [MD], 107 ml/yr; 95% confidence interval [CI], 65.4 to 148.5 ml/yr) and in the subgroups with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern of pulmonary fibrosis (MD, 128.2 ml/yr; 95% CI, 70.8 to 185.6 ml/yr), non-UIP patterns of pulmonary fibrosis (MD, 75.3 ml/yr; 95% CI, 15.5 to 135.0 ml/yr), fibrotic connective tissue disease-related ILD (MD, 106.2 ml/yr; 95% CI, 10.6 to 201.9 ml/yr), fibrotic idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (MD, 141.7 ml/yr; 95% CI, 46.0 to 237.4 ml/yr), and fibrotic occupational ILD (MD, 252.8 ml/yr; 95% CI, 79.2 to 426.5 ml/yr), but not fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (MD, 72.9 ml/yr; 95% CI, -8.9 to 154.7 ml/yr), fibrotic sarcoidosis (MD, -20.5 ml/yr; 95% CI, -337.1 to 296.1 ml/yr), or unclassified fibrotic ILD (MD, 68.5 ml/yr; 95% CI, -31.3 to 168.4 ml/yr) when compared with placebo. Gastrointestinal side effects were common. Quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from very low to moderate GRADE. Conclusions: Nintedanib use in patients with PPF is associated with a statistically significant decrease in disease progression but increase in gastrointestinal side effects regardless of the radiographic pattern of pulmonary fibrosis. However, limitations in the available evidence lead to low certainty in these effect estimates and make definitive conclusions about the differential effects by subtype of ILD difficult to determine. Primary Source of Funding: Funded by the American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax.

Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (an Update) and Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis in Adults: An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: This American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax guideline updates prior idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) guidelines and addresses the progression of pulmonary fibrosis in patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than IPF. Methods: A committee was composed of multidisciplinary experts in ILD, methodologists, and patient representatives. 1) Update of IPF: Radiological and histopathological criteria for IPF were updated by consensus. Questions about transbronchial lung cryobiopsy, genomic classifier testing, antacid medication, and antireflux surgery were informed by systematic reviews and answered with evidence-based recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 2) Progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF): PPF was defined, and then radiological and physiological criteria for PPF were determined by consensus. Questions about pirfenidone and nintedanib were informed by systematic reviews and answered with evidence-based recommendations using the GRADE approach. Results:1) Update of IPF: A conditional recommendation was made to regard transbronchial lung cryobiopsy as an acceptable alternative to surgical lung biopsy in centers with appropriate expertise. No recommendation was made for or against genomic classifier testing. Conditional recommendations were made against antacid medication and antireflux surgery for the treatment of IPF. 2) PPF: PPF was defined as at least two of three criteria (worsening symptoms, radiological progression, and physiological progression) occurring within the past year with no alternative explanation in a patient with an ILD other than IPF. A conditional recommendation was made for nintedanib, and additional research into pirfenidone was recommended. Conclusions: The conditional recommendations in this guideline are intended to provide the basis for rational, informed decisions by clinicians.

Cancer Is an Independent Risk Factor for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critically Ill Patients: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a frequent cause of respiratory failure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and results in significant morbidity and mortality. ARDS often develops as a result of a local or systemic inflammatory insult. Cancer can lead to systemic inflammation but whether cancer is an independent risk factor for developing ARDS is unknown. We hypothesized that critically ill cancer patients admitted to the ICU were at increased risk for the diagnosis of ARDS. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients admitted between July 2017 and December 2018 at an academic medical center in Columbus, Ohio. The primary outcome was the association of patients with malignancy and the diagnosis of ARDS in a multivariable logistic regression model with covariables selected a priori informed through the construction of a directed acyclic graph. RESULTS: 412 ARDS cases were identified with 166 of those patients having active cancer. There was an association between cancer and ARDS, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.55 (95% CI 1.26-1.92, P < 0.001). When adjusted for our pre-specified confounding variables, the association remained statistically significant (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15-2.13, P = 0.004). In an unadjusted pre-specified subgroup analysis, hematologic malignancy (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.53, P < 0.001) was associated with increased odds of developing ARDS while non-metastatic solid tumors (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.85, P = 0.01) had statistically significant negative association. Cancer patients with ARDS had a significantly higher ICU (70.5% vs 39.8%, P < 0.001) and hospital (72.9% vs 40.7%, P < 0.001) mortality compared to ARDS patients without active malignancy. CONCLUSION: In this single center retrospective cohort study, cancer was found to be an independent risk factor for the diagnosis of ARDS in critically ill patients. To our knowledge, we are the first report an independent association between cancer and ARDS in critically ill patients.