An adjudication algorithm for respiratory-related hospitalisation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Background: There is no standard definition of respiratory-related hospitalisation, a common end-point in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) clinical trials. As diverse aetiologies and complicating comorbidities can present similarly, external adjudication is sometimes employed to achieve standardisation of these events. Methods: An algorithm for respiratory-related hospitalisation was developed through a literature review of IPF clinical trials with respiratory-related hospitalisation as an end-point. Experts reviewed the algorithm until a consensus was reached. The algorithm was validated using data from the phase 3 ISABELA trials (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT03711162 and NCT03733444), by assessing concordance between nonadjudicated, investigator-defined, respiratory-related hospitalisations and those defined by the adjudication committee using the algorithm. Results: The algorithm classifies respiratory-related hospitalisation according to cause: extraparenchymal (worsening respiratory symptoms due to left heart failure, volume overload, pulmonary embolism, pneumothorax or trauma); other (respiratory tract infection, right heart failure or exacerbation of COPD); "definite" acute exacerbation of IPF (AEIPF) (worsening respiratory symptoms within 1 month, with radiological or histological evidence of diffuse alveolar damage); or "suspected" AEIPF (as for "definite" AEIPF, but with no radiological or histological evidence of diffuse alveolar damage). Exacerbations ("definite" or "suspected") with identified triggers (infective, post-procedural or traumatic, drug toxicity- or aspiration-related) are classed as "known AEIPF"; "idiopathic AEIPF" refers to exacerbations with no identified trigger. In the ISABELA programme, there was 94% concordance between investigator- and adjudication committee-determined causes of respiratory-related hospitalisation. Conclusion: The algorithm could help to ensure consistency in the reporting of respiratory-related hospitalisation in IPF trials, optimising its utility as an end-point.

Ziritaxestat, a Novel Autotaxin Inhibitor, and Lung Function in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: The ISABELA 1 and 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: There is a major need for effective, well-tolerated treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat in patients with IPF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 2 identically designed, phase 3, randomized clinical trials, ISABELA 1 and ISABELA 2, were conducted in Africa, Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America (26 countries). A total of 1306 patients with IPF were randomized (525 patients at 106 sites in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients at 121 sites in ISABELA 2). Enrollment began in November 2018 in both trials and follow-up was completed early due to study termination on April 12, 2021, for ISABELA 1 and on March 30, 2021, for ISABELA 2. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 600 mg of oral ziritaxestat, 200 mg of ziritaxestat, or placebo once daily in addition to local standard of care (pirfenidone, nintedanib, or neither) for at least 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the annual rate of decline for forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 52. The key secondary outcomes were disease progression, time to first respiratory-related hospitalization, and change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate poorer health-related quality of life). Results: At the time of study termination, 525 patients were randomized in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients in ISABELA 2 (mean age: 70.0 [SD, 7.2] years in ISABELA 1 and 69.8 [SD, 7.1] years in ISABELA 2; male: 82.4% and 81.2%, respectively). The trials were terminated early after an independent data and safety monitoring committee concluded that the benefit to risk profile of ziritaxestat no longer supported their continuation. Ziritaxestat did not improve the annual rate of FVC decline vs placebo in either study. In ISABELA 1, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was -124.6 mL (95% CI, -178.0 to -71.2 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs -147.3 mL (95% CI, -199.8 to -94.7 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 22.7 mL [95% CI, -52.3 to 97.6 mL]), and -173.9 mL (95% CI, -225.7 to -122.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, -26.7 mL [95% CI, -100.5 to 47.1 mL]). In ISABELA 2, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was -173.8 mL (95% CI, -209.2 to -138.4 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs -176.6 mL (95% CI, -211.4 to -141.8 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 2.8 mL [95% CI, -46.9 to 52.4 mL]) and -174.9 mL (95% CI, -209.5 to -140.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, 1.7 mL [95% CI, -47.4 to 50.8 mL]). There was no benefit with ziritaxestat vs placebo for the key secondary outcomes. In ISABELA 1, all-cause mortality was 8.0% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 4.6% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 6.3% with placebo; in ISABELA 2, it was 9.3% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 8.5% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 4.7% with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Ziritaxestat did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo in patients with IPF receiving standard of care treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib or in those not receiving standard of care treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03711162 and NCT03733444.

Quality of pathology reports for advanced ovarian cancer: are we missing essential information? An audit of 479 pathology reports from the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 neoadjuvant trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of surgical pathology reports of advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. This quality assurance project was performed within the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 study comparing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. METHODS: Four hundred and seventy nine pathology reports from 40 institutions in 11 different countries were checked for the following quality indicators: macroscopic description of all specimens, measuring and weighing of major specimens, description of tumour origin and differentiation. RESULTS: All specimens were macroscopically described in 92.3% of the reports. All major samples were measured and weighed in 59.9% of the reports. A description of the origin of the tumour was missing in 20.5% of reports of the primary debulking group and in 23.4% of the interval debulking group. Assessment of tumour differentiation was missing in 10% of the reports after primary debulking and in 20.8% of the reports after interval debulking. Completeness of reports is positively correlated with accrual volume and adversely with hospital volume or type of hospital (academic versus non-academic). Quality of reports differs significantly by country. CONCLUSION: This audit of ovarian cancer pathology reports reveals that in a substantial number of reports basic pathologic data are missing, with possible adverse consequences for the quality of cancer care. Specialisation by pathologists and the use of standardised synoptic reports can lead to improved quality of reporting. Further research is needed to better define pre- and post-operative diagnostic criteria for ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.