Usefulness and safety of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy for reassessment of treatment in the clinical course of diffuse parenchymal lung disease.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness and safety of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) for reassessment of diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD) with progression is still unknown. Our purpose was to clarify the usefulness and safety of TBLC for reassessment of DPLD with progression. METHODS: This retrospective study included 31 patients with DPLD diagnosed by surgical lung biopsy who progressed in the clinical course and underwent TBLC for reassessment between January 2017 and September 2019 at Kanagawa Cardiovascular & Respiratory Center. Two pulmonologists independently selected the clinical diagnosis, treatment strategy, and confidence level of the treatment strategy based on clinical and radiological information with and without pathological information from TBLC. A consensus was reached among the pulmonologists regarding the clinical diagnosis, treatment strategy, and confidence level of the treatment strategy. Complications of TBLC were also examined. RESULTS: Seven (22.6%), 5 (16.1%), and 6 (19.4%) of clinical diagnosis was changed after TBLC for Pulmonologist A, for Pulmonologist B, and for consensus, respectively. The treatment strategy was changed in 7 (22.6%), 8 (25.9%), and 6 (19.4%) cases after TBLC for Pulmonologist A, for Pulmonologist B and for consensus, respectively. The definite or high confidence level of the consensus treatment strategy was 54.8% (17/31) without TBLC and 83.9% (26/31) with TBLC. There were 6 cases of moderate bleeding, but no other complications were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Pathological information from TBLC may contribute to decision-making in treatment strategies for the progression of DPLD, and it may be safely performed.

Antifibrotic therapy and its indications for interstitial pulmonary fibrosis.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and chronic fibrotic interstitial lung disease with progressive phenotype are characterized by fibrotic lung parenchyma. Current antifibrotic treatment does not affect pre-existing lung parenchyma fibrosis, but prevents fibrosis progression and reduces mortality by reducing fibrotization. This work summarizes fibrotic lung processes and their treatment options.

[The role of artificial intelligence in assessing the progression of fibrosing lung diseases].

INTRODUCTION: The widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) programs during the COVID-19 pandemic to assess the exact volume of lung tissue damage has allowed them to train a large number of radiologists. The simplicity of the program for determining the volume of the affected lung tissue in acute interstitial pneumonia, which has density indicators in the range from -200 HU to -730 HU, which includes the density indicators of "ground glass" and reticulation (the main radiation patterns in COVID-19) allows you to accurately determine the degree of prevalence process. The characteristics of chronic interstitial pneumonia, which are progressive in nature, fit into the same density framework. Аim. To аssess AI's ability to assess the progression of fibrosing lung disease using lung volume counting programs used for COVID-19 and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. RESULTS: Retrospective analysis of computed tomography data during follow-up of 75 patients with progressive fibrosing lung disease made it possible to assess the prevalence and growth of interstitial lesions. CONCLUSION: Using the experience of using AI programs to assess acute interstitial pneumonia in COVID-19 can be applied to chronic interstitial pneumonia.

Possible value of antifibrotic drugs in patients with progressive fibrosing non-IPF interstitial lung diseases.

BACKGROUND: Fibrosing, non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (non-IPF) interstitial lung diseases (fILDs) are a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by a different amount of inflammation and fibrosis. Therapy is currently based on corticosteroids and/or immunomodulators. However, response to these therapies is highly variable, sometimes without meaningful improvement, especially in more fibrosing forms. Pirfenidone and nintedanib have recently demonstrated to reduce functional decline in patients with IPF. However, their antifibrotic mechanism makes these two drugs an interesting approach for treatment of fibrosing ILDs other than IPF. OBJECTIVES: We here report our experience with antifibrotic drugs in fibrosing non-IPF ILDs patients having a progressive phenotype during immunosuppressive therapy. METHODS: Patients with a multidisciplinary team diagnosis of fibrosing non-IPF ILDs experiencing a progressive phenotype during treatment with corticosteroids and/or immunomodulators between October-2014 and January-2018 at our tertiary referral Center for ILDs were retrospectively analyzed. Antifibrotic therapy was administered after application with the respective health insurance company and after consent by the patient. Pulmonary-function-tests and follow-up visits were performed every 6 ± 1 months. RESULTS: Eleven patients were treated with antifibrotic drugs (8 males, mean age 62 ± 12.8 years, mean FVC% 62.8 ± 22.3, mean DLCO% 35.5 ± 10.7, median follow-up under antifibrotic treatment 11.1 months). Patients had a diagnosis of unclassifiable ILD in 6 cases, pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis in 2 cases, idiopathic-NSIP in 1 case, asbestos-related ILD in 1 case and Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome in 1 case. Treatment before antifibrotics consisted of corticosteroids in all patients: 5 combined with Azathioprin, 1 with either methotrexate or cyclophosphamide (i.v.). Ten patients were treated with pirfenidone (2403 mg/die) and 1 with nintedanib (300 mg/die). Median FVC was 56, 56, 50%, at time points - 24, - 12, - 6 before initiation, 44% at time of initiation and 46.5% at 6 months after initiation of antifibrotic treatment. Antifibrotic treatment was generally well tolerated with a need of dose reduction in 2 cases (rash and nausea) and early termination in 3 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Antifibrotic treatment may be a valuable treatment option in patients with progressive fibrosing non-IPF ILD if currently no other treatment options exist. However, prospective, randomized clinical trials are urgently needed to assess the real impact of antifibrotic therapy in these patients.

Treatment with low-dose nintedanib and tacrolimus in patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases with anti-ARS antibody-positive dermatomyositis.

Nintedanib has been demonstrated to inhibit the rate of forced vital capacity decline in patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (PF-ILD) at a dose of 200 or 300 mg/day in the INBUILD trial. Although concomitant use of nintedanib with P-glycoprotein inhibitors reportedly increases the plasma concentrations of the former, tacrolimus, a P-glycoprotein inhibitor, is often used to treat connective tissue diseases-related interstitial lung diseases. The optimal dose of nintedanib in combination with tacrolimus for the treatment of PF-ILD with connective tissue disease is unknown. We herein present two patients with PF-ILD with anti-aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase antibody-positive dermatomyositis who were successfully treated with low-dose nintedanib (<200 mg/day) in combination with tacrolimus.

Defining and predicting progression in non-IPF interstitial lung disease.

Randomized placebo-controlled trials demonstrated the efficacy of antifibrotic treatment in non-IPF progressive fibrosing ILD (fILD). Currently, there is no consensus on how progression should be defined and clinical data of non-IPF fILD patients in a real-world setting are scarce. Non-IPF fILD patients presenting at the University Hospitals Leuven between 2012 and 2016 were included. Different definitions of progression according to the selection criteria of the INBUILD, RELIEF and the uILD study were retrospectively evaluated at every hospital visit. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of progression and mortality. The study cohort comprised 120 patients; 68.3%, 54.2% and 65.8% had progressive disease based on the INBUILD, RELIEF and uILD study, respectively. A large overlap of progressive fILD patients according to the different clinical trials was observed. Median transplant-free survival time of progressive fILD patients was 3.9, 3.9, 3.8 years and the median time-to-progression after diagnosis was 2.0, 3.1 and 2.3 years according to the INBUILD, RELIEF and uILD study, respectively. We identified several predictors of mortality, but only an underlying diagnosis of HP and uILD was independently associated with progression. Our data show a high prevalence of progressive fibrosis among non-IPF fILD patients and a discrepancy between predictors of mortality and progression. Mortality rate in fILD is high and the identification of progressive disease is only made late during the disease course. Moreover, future treatment decisions will be based upon disease behavior. Therefore, more predictors of progressive disease are needed to guide treatment decisions in the future.