Defining the pathway to timely diagnosis and treatment of interstitial lung disease: a US Delphi survey.

INTRODUCTION: Timely diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD) is limited by obstacles in the current patient pathway. Misdiagnosis and delays are common and may lead to a significant burden of diagnostic procedures and worse outcomes. This Delphi survey aimed to identify consensus on the key steps that facilitate the patient journey to an accurate ILD diagnosis and appropriate management in the US. METHODS: A modified Delphi analysis was conducted, comprising three online surveys based on a comprehensive literature search. The surveys spanned five domains (guidelines, community screening, diagnosis, management and specialist referral) and were completed by a panel of US physicians, including primary care physicians and pulmonologists practising in community or academic settings. A priori definitions of consensus agreement were median scores of 2-3 (agree strongly/agree), with an IQR of 0-1 for questions on a 7-point Likert scale from -3 to 3, or ≥80% agreement for binary questions. RESULTS: Forty-nine panellists completed the surveys and 62 statements reached consensus agreement. There was consensus agreement on what should be included in the primary care evaluation of patients with suspected ILD and the next steps following workup. Regarding diagnosis in community pulmonology care, consensus agreement was reached on the requisition and reporting of high-resolution CT scans and the appropriate circumstances for holding multidisciplinary discussions. Additionally, there was consensus agreement on which symptoms and comorbidities should be monitored, the frequency of consultations and the assessment of disease progression. Regarding specialist referral, consensus agreement was reached on which patients should receive priority access to ILD centres and the contents of the referral package. CONCLUSIONS: These findings clarify the most common issues that should merit further evaluation for ILD and help define the steps for timely, accurate diagnosis and appropriate collaborative specialty management of patients with ILD.

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of a 24-week, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of inhaled long-acting bronchodilator therapies such as muscarinic antagonists and ß2-agonists may be more effective than monotherapy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This study was a 24-week, Phase III, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study of the once-daily, inhaled, fixed-dose combination of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium bromide and the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg) versus tiotropium (TIO, 18 mcg). The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Day 169. The secondary endpoint was weighted mean FEV1 over 0­6 h post-dose at Day 168. For key endpoints, a step-down closed testing hierarchy was applied to account for multiplicity. Other efficacy and safety endpoints were assessed. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Day 169 (0.112 L, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.081, 0.144; p < 0.001) and weighted mean FEV1 over 0­6 h post-dose at Day 168 (0.105 L, 95% CI: 0.071, 0.140; p < 0.001) were observed for UMEC/VI versus TIO. In addition UMEC/VI improved health-related quality of life, and reduced requirement for the use of rescue medication compared with TIO. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: UMEC/VI was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function versus TIO. UMEC/VI was well tolerated. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg could provide an effective new treatment option for patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Combination long-acting bronchodilator treatment might be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) plus vilanterol (VI) with tiotropium (TIO) monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, or VI monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS: In two multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled trials, eligible patients (current or former smokers aged 40 years or older with an established clinical history of COPD) were randomly assigned in 1:1:1:1 ratio to UMEC 125 µg plus VI 25 µg, UMEC 62·5 µg plus VI 25 µg, TIO 18 µg, and either VI 25 µg (study 1) or UMEC 125 µg (study 2). All study drugs were used once daily for 24 weeks. TIO was delivered via the HandiHaler inhaler and all other active treatments were delivered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system) was done by centre and was not stratified. All patients and physicians were masked to assigned treatment during the studies. The primary efficacy endpoint of both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 169, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Both studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01316900 (study 1) and NCT01316913 (study 2). FINDINGS: 1141 participants were recruited in study 1, and 1191 in study 2. For study 1, after exclusions, 208, 209, 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI monotherapy, UMEC 125 µg plus VI 25 µg, and UMEC 62·5 µg plus VI 25 µg, respectively. For study 2, 215, 222, 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, UMEC 125 µg plus VI 25 µg, and UMEC 62·5 µg plus VI 25 µg, respectively. In both studies, we noted improvements in trough FEV1 on day 169 for both doses of UMEC plus VI compared with TIO monotherapy (study 1, UMEC 125 µg plus VI 25 µg: 0·088 L [95% CI 0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; study 1, UMEC 62·5 µg plus VI 25 µg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·141; p=0·0006]; study 2, UMEC 125 µg plus VI 25 µg: 0·074 L [0·025 to 0·123; p=0·0031]; study 2, UMEC 62·5 µg plus VI 25 µg: 0·060 L [0·010 to 0·109; nominal p=0·0182]). Both doses of UMEC plus VI also improved trough FEV1 compared with VI monotherapy (UMEC 125 µg plus VI 25 µg: 0·088 L [0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; UMEC 62·5 µg plus VI 25 µg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·142; p=0·0006], but not compared with UMEC 125 µg monotherapy (UMEC 125 µg plus VI 25 µg: 0·037 L [-0·012 to 0·087; p=0·14]; UMEC 62·5 µg plus VI 25 µg: 0·022 L [-0·027 to 0·072; p=0·38]). All treatments produced improvements in dyspnoea and health-related quality of life; we noted no significant differences in symptoms, health status, or risk of exacerbation between UMEC plus VI and TIO. The most common on-treatment, severe-intensity adverse event in both studies was acute exacerbation of COPD (1-4 [<1-2%] patients across treatment groups in study 1 and 1-6 [<1-3%] patients in study 2). We recorded five to 15 (2-7%) on-treatment serious adverse events across treatment groups in study 1, and nine to 22 (4-10%) in study 2. We noted no substantial changes from baseline in vital signs, clinical laboratory findings, or electrocardiography findings in any of the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Combination treatment with once-daily UMEC plus VI improved lung function compared with VI monotherapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with COPD. Overall our results suggest that the combination of UMEC plus VI could be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Remission of severe restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movements in sleep after bilateral excision of multiple foot neuromas: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Restless legs syndrome is a sensorimotor neurological disorder characterized by an urge to move the legs in response to uncomfortable leg sensations. While asleep, 70 to 90 percent of patients with restless legs syndrome have periodic limb movements in sleep. Frequent periodic limb movements in sleep and related brain arousals as documented by polysomnography are associated with poorer quality of sleep and daytime fatigue. Restless legs syndrome in middle age is sometimes associated with neuropathic foot dysesthesias. The causes of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movements in sleep are unknown, but the sensorimotor symptoms are hypothesized to originate in the central nervous system. We have previously determined that bilateral forefoot digital nerve impingement masses (neuromas) may be a cause of both neuropathic foot dysesthesias and the leg restlessness of restless legs syndrome. To the best of our knowledge, this case is the first report of bilateral foot neuromas as a cause of periodic limb movements in sleep. CASE PRESENTATION: A 42-year-old Caucasian woman with severe restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movements in sleep and bilateral neuropathic foot dysesthesias was diagnosed as having neuromas in the second, third, and fourth metatarsal head interspaces of both feet. The third interspace neuromas represented regrowth (or 'stump') neuromas that had developed since bilateral third interspace neuroma excision five years earlier. Because intensive conservative treatments including repeated neuroma injections and various restless legs syndrome medications had failed, radical surgery was recommended. All six neuromas were excised. Leg restlessness, foot dysesthesias and subjective sleep quality improved immediately. Assessment after 18 days showed an 84 to 100 percent reduction of visual analog scale scores for specific dysesthesias and marked reductions of pre-operative scores of the Pittsburgh sleep quality index, fatigue severity scale, and the international restless legs syndrome rating scale (36 to 4). Polysomnography six weeks post-operatively showed improved sleep efficiency, a marked increase in rapid eye movement sleep, and marked reductions in hourly rates of both periodic limb movements in sleep with arousal (135.3 to 3.3) and spontaneous arousals (17.3 to 0). CONCLUSION: The immediate and near complete remission of symptoms, the histopathology of the excised tissues, and the marked improvement in polysomnographic parameters documented six weeks after surgery together indicate that this patient's severe restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movements in sleep was of peripheral nerve (foot neuroma) origin. Further study of foot neuromas as a source of periodic limb movements in sleep and as a cause of sleep dysfunction in patients with or without concomitant restless legs syndrome, is warranted.