Antifibrotics and lung transplantation: A Spanish multicentre case-controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Antifibrotic drugs are the standard treatments for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This study aims to assess the safety of antifibrotic treatment in IPF patients undergoing lung transplantation. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of IPF who received a lung transplant between January 2015 and June 2019 at four Spanish hospitals specialized in lung transplantation were retrospectively recruited. Cases were defined as patients receiving antifibrotic treatments at time of transplant. Each case was matched with a control who did not receive antifibrotic treatment. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were included in the study cohort (103 cases and 61 controls). There were no statistically significant differences between the cases and controls in any of the items studied related to transplantation except the time until the appearance of chest wall dehiscence: although there were no differences in the incidence of wall dehiscence in either group (12.3% vs. 13.7%; p = 0.318), the patients on antifibrotic drugs experienced it earlier (21 days [IQR = 12.5-41.5] vs. 63 days [IQR = 46.75-152.25]; p = 0.012). There were no differences in overall post-transplant survival between the two groups (p = 0.698) or in conditional survival at 30 days, 90 days, 3 years or 5 years. However, 1 year survival was significantly greater among controls (80.6% vs. 93.3%; p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: There was evidence that chest wall dehiscences appeared earlier post-transplant in patients using antifibrotics, even though this factor did not significantly impact survival.

Salvage therapy with topical posaconazole in lung transplant recipients with invasive Scedosporium infection.

Scedosporium is an important pathogen in cystic fibrosis (CF) and post-transplantation, but it rarely causes invasive infection. Treatment remains challenging, particularly due to the inherent resistance to multiple antifungal agents. We present 3 complicated invasive tracheobronchial and lung Scedosporium apiospermum infections following lung transplantation. In 2 of 3 cases, the infection was clinically and radiologically cured with frequent cleansing bronchoscopies, combining triazole with terbinafine therapy and nebulized posaconazole. These cases highlight the importance of adjunctive nebulized therapy in addition to prolonged triazole treatment to manage complex invasive Scedosporium infections in immunosuppressed patients. Posaconazole (PSZ) was delivered during the bronchoscopy procedure through intrabronchial administration, whereas an eFlow rapid® device was used for nebulized therapy. Topical posaconazole was well tolerated in 2 patients, with only a slight cough during administrations; the third patient had local irritation with poor tolerance, which led to its withdrawal. This is the first report on compassionate use of topical PSZ as salvage therapy for resistant mold infections in lung transplant recipients. These 3 cases represent the entire experience using this approach; no additional patients have received this therapy due to there not having been any additional cases of Scedosporium tracheobronchitis presented.

Tolerance and Safety of 5 Models of Sedation During Endobronchial Ultrasound.

INTRODUCTION: Sedation during endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is essential due to the long duration of this procedure. We evaluated different models of sedation and their complications. METHOD: A multicenter, prospective, observational study of 307 patients undergoing EBUS was conducted. Patients were sedated with: a) midazolam bolus; b) propofol infusion; c) midazolam bolus and propofol infusion; d) propofol infusion and remifentanil infusión, or e) midazolam bolus and fentanyl bolus, and clinical variables were collected. Patients were asked to complete a satisfaction survey following the test. RESULTS: Patients per sedation model were: A 24, B 37, C 107, D 62 and E 77. Scores for perceived sensations of recall, pain, cough, dyspnea and prolonged examination (0.65±1.11; 0 3±0.73, 0.46±0.9, 0.29±0.73, and 0.59±0.96, respectively) were lower compared to fear and nervousness before the examination (1.26±1.37 and 1.5±1.41, respectively). High levels of indifference to repeating the procedure (1.49±1.3) and a reported pleasant feeling during the test (1.23±1.17), with low levels of anxiety (0.49±0.85) and discomfort (0.62±1.1), show that different models of sedation were well tolerated. Almost half the patients (46.6%) did not report any "worst moment" during the procedure, and 89.6% were willing to undergo a repeat test. The E and C models presented fewest complications (12.9 and 31.7%, respectively), and all were resolved with simple therapeutic measures. CONCLUSIONS: The models of sedation evaluated were well tolerated and most patients were willing to undergo repeat EBUS. Complications were few and easily resolved.