A review of the challenges, learnings and future directions of home handheld spirometry in interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular physician visits and referral to specialist ILD clinics. Difficulties or delays in accessing care can limit opportunities to monitor disease trajectory and response to treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has added to these challenges. Therefore, home monitoring technologies, such as home handheld spirometry, have gained increased attention as they may help to improve access to care for patients with ILD. However, while several studies have shown that home handheld spirometry in ILD is acceptable for most patients, data from clinical trials are not sufficiently robust to support its use as a primary endpoint. This review discusses the challenges that were encountered with handheld spirometry across three recent ILD studies, which included home spirometry as a primary endpoint, and highlights where further optimisation and research into home handheld spirometry in ILD is required. Rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) as measured by daily home handheld spirometry versus site spirometry was of primary interest in three recently completed studies: STARLINER (NCT03261037), STARMAP and a Phase II study of pirfenidone in progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD (NCT03099187). Unanticipated practical and technical issues led to problems with estimating FVC decline. In all three studies, cross-sectional correlations for home handheld versus site spirometry were strong/moderate at baseline and later timepoints, but longitudinal correlations were weak. Other issues observed with the home handheld spirometry data included: high within-patient variability in home handheld FVC measurements; implausible longitudinal patterns in the home handheld spirometry data that were not reflected in site spirometry; and extreme estimated rates of FVC change. CONCLUSIONS: Home handheld spirometry in ILD requires further optimisation and research to ensure accurate and reliable FVC measurements before it can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials. Refresher training, automated alerts of problems and FVC changes, and patient support could help to overcome some practical issues. Despite the challenges, there is value in incorporating home handheld spirometry into clinical practice, and the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential for home monitoring technologies to help improve access to care for patients with ILD.

Efficacy of Pirfenidone vs. Placebo in Unclassifiable Interstitial Lung Disease, by Surgical Lung Biopsy Status: Data From a post-hoc Analysis.

Approximately 12-13% of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) are diagnosed with unclassifiable ILD (uILD), often despite thorough evaluation. A recent Phase 2 study (NCT03099187) described a significant effect of pirfenidone vs. placebo on forced vital capacity (FVC) measured by site spirometry in patients with progressive fibrosing uILD (hereafter referred to as the pirfenidone in uILD study). Here, we present the results from a post-hoc analysis of this study to assess patient baseline characteristics and the efficacy of pirfenidone vs. placebo analyzed by surgical lung biopsy (SLB) status. Mean FVC (mL) change over 24 weeks was included as a post-hoc efficacy outcome. Of 253 randomized patients, 88 (34.8%) had a SLB and 165 (65.2%) did not. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between SLB subgroups; however, patients who had a SLB were slightly younger and had a higher 6-min walk distance than those without a SLB. Mean FVC change over 24 weeks for pirfenidone vs. placebo was -90.9 vs. -146.3 mL, respectively, in patients who had a SLB, and 8.2 vs. -85.3 mL, respectively, in patients without a SLB. Overall, the results from the post-hoc analysis identified that pirfenidone may be an effective treatment in progressive fibrosing uILD over 24 weeks, irrespective of SLB status; however, caution should be taken when interpreting these data due to several limitations. There are differences in the treatment effect of pirfenidone between the subgroups that require further pathological and radiological investigation. In this manuscript, we also descriptively compared baseline characteristics from the overall pirfenidone in uILD study population with other uILD populations reported in the literature, with the aim of understanding if there are any similarities or differences within these cohorts. Most baseline characteristics for patients in the pirfenidone in uILD study were within the ranges reported in the literature; however, ranges were wide, highlighting the heterogeneity of uILD populations. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03099187.

Pirfenidone in Unclassifiable Interstitial Lung Disease: A Subgroup Analysis by Concomitant Mycophenolate Mofetil and/or Previous Corticosteroid Use.

INTRODUCTION: There are currently no approved treatments solely for unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (uILD); however, a recent trial showed this population can benefit from pirfenidone. We report a subgroup analysis of this trial to assess the effects of immunomodulators (concomitant mycophenolate mofetil [MMF] and/or previous corticosteroids) with pirfenidone in patients with uILD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, international, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial of patients with progressive fibrosing uILD (NCT03099187). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive pirfenidone 2403 mg/day or placebo. This analysis assessed forced vital capacity (FVC) change from baseline measured using site spirometry (key secondary endpoint) and safety over 24 weeks by concomitant MMF use at randomization (pre-specified analysis) and/or previous corticosteroid use (post hoc analysis). RESULTS: Overall, 253 patients were randomized, including 45 (17.8%) patients (pirfenidone, n = 23; placebo, n = 22) receiving concomitant MMF with/without previous corticosteroids (MMF subgroup); 79 (31.2%) patients (pirfenidone, n = 44; placebo, n = 35) receiving previous corticosteroids without MMF (corticosteroids/no-MMF subgroup); and 129 (51.0%) patients (pirfenidone, n = 60; placebo, n = 69) not receiving concomitant MMF or previous corticosteroids (no-corticosteroids/no-MMF subgroup). At 24 weeks, difference in mean (95% confidence interval) FVC change from baseline between pirfenidone and placebo was - 55.4 mL (- 206.7, 96.0; P = 0.4645) in the MMF subgroup; 128.4 mL (- 6.4, 263.3; P = 0.0617) in the corticosteroids/no-MMF subgroup; and 115.5 mL (35.1, 195.9; P = 0.0052) in the no-corticosteroids/no-MMF subgroup. All subgroups generally exhibited a similar pattern of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although limited by design and small sample sizes, this analysis suggests pirfenidone may be less effective in patients with uILD receiving concomitant MMF, whereas a beneficial treatment effect was observed in patients not receiving concomitant MMF regardless of previous corticosteroid use. Pirfenidone was well tolerated regardless of MMF and/or corticosteroid use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03099187.

Pirfenidone in patients with unclassifiable progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: At present, no approved pharmacotherapies are available for unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (ILD), which is characterised by progressive fibrosis of the lung. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in patients with progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at 70 centres in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18-85 years) had progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD, a percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) of 45% or higher and percent predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLco) of 30% or higher, more than 10% fibrosis on high-resolution CT, and a high-resolution CT from the previous 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 2403 mg oral pirfenidone daily or placebo using a central validated interactive voice or web-based response system, stratified by concomitant mycophenolate mofetil use and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features. Investigators, site personnel, and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was mean predicted change in FVC from baseline over 24 weeks, measured by daily home spirometry. Secondary endpoints were change in FVC measured by site spirometry, proportion of patients who had a more than 5% or more than 10% absolute or relative decline in percent predicted FVC measured by clinic-based spirometry, change in percent predicted DLco, change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD), change in University of California San Diego-Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ) score, change in Leicester Cough Questionnaire score, change in cough visual analogue scale, and changes in total and subscores of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), all of which were compared with baseline. Additional secondary endpoints included proportion of patients who had non-elective hospitalisation (respiratory and all-cause) and acute exacerbations, and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03099187, and is no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2017, and June 5, 2018, 253 patients were randomly assigned to receive 2403 mg pirfenidone (n=127) or placebo (n=126) and were included in the ITT analysis set. Analysis of the primary endpoint was affected by intraindividual variability in home spirometry values, which prevented application of the prespecified statistical model. Over 24 weeks, predicted median change in FVC measured by home spirometry was -87·7 mL (Q1-Q3 -338·1 to 148·6) in the pirfenidone group versus -157·1 mL (-370·9 to 70·1) in the placebo group. Over 24 weeks, predicted mean change in FVC measured by site spirometry was lower in patients given pirfenidone than placebo (treatment difference 95·3 mL [95% CI 35·9 to 154·6], p=0·002). Compared with the placebo group, patients in the pirfenidone group were less likely to have a decline in FVC of more than 5% (odds ratio [OR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·25 to 0·69], p=0·001) or more than 10% (OR 0·44 [0·23 to 0·84], p=0·011). At week 24, mean change in DLco from baseline was -0·7% (SD 7·1) for the pirfenidone group and -2·5% (8·8) for the placebo group, and mean change in 6MWD from baseline was -2·0 m (68·1) for the pirfenidone group and -26·7 m (79·3) for the placebo group. Changes from baseline in UCSD-SOBQ, Leicester Cough Questionnaire score, cough visual analogue scale, and SGRQ scores were similar between the pirfenidone and placebo groups at week 24. Analysis of acute exacerbations, hospital admissions, and time to death from respiratory causes during the study yielded no meaningful results due to a small number of events. No differences in progression-free survival were identified between the pirfenidone and placebo groups, irrespective of the definition of progression-free survival used. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 120 (94%) of 127 patients in the pirfenidone group and 101 (81%) of 124 patients in the placebo group. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 18 (14%) patients in the pirfenidone group and 20 (16%) patients in the placebo group. The most common treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (60 [47%] in the pirfenidone group vs 32 [26%] in the placebo group), fatigue (16 [13%] vs 12 [10%]), and rash (13 [10%] vs nine [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the planned statistical model could not be applied to the primary endpoint data, analysis of key secondary endpoints suggests that patients with progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD could benefit from pirfenidone treatment, which has an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. These findings support further investigation of pirfenidone as an effective treatment for patients with progressive fibrotic unclassifiable ILD. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Pirfenidone in patients with unclassifiable progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease: design of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Despite extensive multidisciplinary team (MDT) assessment, some patients have interstitial lung disease (ILD) that is considered unclassifiable (uILD), for which there are currently no approved treatments. This study will assess the efficacy and safety of the antifibrotic pirfenidone in treating uILD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial is enrolling adults with fibrosing ILD, including uILD that fulfils proposed research criteria for interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF), that cannot be classified with moderate or high confidence to any category of ILD following MDT discussion. Study participants must have >10% fibrosis on high-resolution CT scan within the previous 12 months, forced vital capacity (FVC) ≥45% and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide ≥30% of predicted values. Study participants will be randomised to receive 801 mg pirfenidone or placebo three times daily for 24 weeks. The efficacy of pirfenidone vs placebo will be assessed by daily measurement of FVC using a handheld spirometer over the treatment period. Other functional parameters, patient-reported outcomes, samples for biomarker analysis and safety endpoints will be collected. Additionally, the study will assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone with and without concomitant mycophenolate mofetil treatment and in study participants with or without IPAF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is being conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation E6 guideline for Good Clinical Practice, Declaration of Helsinki and local laws for countries in which the research is conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03099187.

Identifying Barriers to Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Treatment: A Survey of Patient and Physician Views.

BACKGROUND: Antifibrotics are recommended for the treatment of individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), but treatment use remains at ∼60%. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the views of individuals with IPF and pulmonologists on the diagnosis and management of IPF to understand treatment patterns. METHODS: Interviews and/or online surveys were completed by patients and pulmonologists from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Responses from physicians were analyzed by time between diagnosis and treatment initiation in the majority of patients with IPF (group A, > 4 months; group B, ≤4 months). Statistical comparisons between physicians were undertaken using z tests, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The physicians in group A saw fewer patients, were less comfortable discussing the IPF prognosis with patients, and had less belief in the benefits of antifibrotic treatments than the physicians in group B. These physicians' attitudes contrasted with those of the patients, who wanted more information about the IPF prognosis and pharmacological treatment options at diagnosis and were more concerned about preventing disease progression than avoiding medication side effects. Differences between countries were found regarding physicians' comfort in discussing the prognosis at diagnosis and access to care. CONCLUSIONS: Several barriers to antifibrotic treatment, principally reflecting the differing views and values of patients and physicians, were identified in this study, suggesting a need for better patient-physician communication about pharmacological therapy for IPF.

Unmet needs in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis-insights from patient chart review in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Two antifibrotic drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, are approved by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). In this analysis, treatment patterns of European patients with IPF were investigated to understand antifibrotic prescribing and identify unmet needs in IPF treatment practice. METHODS: Between February and March 2016, respiratory physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK participated in an online questionnaire designed to collect information on IPF treatment patterns in patients under their care. Patients were categorized as treated (received approved antifibrotics) or untreated (did not receive approved antifibrotics, but may have received other unapproved therapies). Classification of IPF diagnosis (confirmed/suspected) and severity ('mild'/'moderate'/'severe') for each patient was based on the individual physician's report. Patients' perspectives were not recorded in this study. RESULTS: In total, 290 physicians responded to the questionnaire. Overall, 54% of patients with IPF did not receive treatment with an approved antifibrotic. More patients had a confirmed IPF diagnosis in the treated (84%) versus the untreated (51%) population. Of patients with a confirmed diagnosis, 40% did not receive treatment. The treated population was younger than the untreated population (67 vs 70 years, respectively; p ≤ 0.01), with more frequent multidisciplinary team evaluation (83% vs 57%, respectively; p ≤ 0.01). A higher proportion of untreated patients had forced vital capacity > 80% at diagnosis versus treated patients. Of patients with 'mild' IPF, 71% did not receive an approved antifibrotic versus 41% and 60% of patients with 'moderate' and 'severe' IPF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of antifibrotic therapies, many European patients with confirmed IPF do not receive approved antifibrotic treatment. Importantly, there appears to be a reluctance to treat patients with 'mild' or 'stable' disease, and instead adopt a 'watch and wait' approach. More education is required to address diagnostic uncertainty, poor understanding of IPF and its treatments, and issues of treatment access. There is a need to increase physician awareness of the benefits associated with antifibrotic treatment across the spectrum of IPF severity.