The extended utility of antifibrotic therapy in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease

Multidisciplinary teams in the clinical care of fibrotic interstitial lung disease: current perspectives

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, involving the integrated collaboration of healthcare professionals, are increasingly used in clinical practice to inform the diagnosis and treatment of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Over time, the assessment of patients with ILD has transitioned from discussions among clinicians, radiologists and pathologists to the inclusion of a broader range of clinical data and specialist expertise. Studies have shown that a multidisciplinary approach can have many benefits for the clinical care of patients with ILD by improving the diagnostic confidence for different ILDs and guiding treatment decisions. The utility of MDT discussions for diagnosis, monitoring disease progression and management decisions, will need to be considered based on how it is best positioned in the diagnostic and therapeutic process, as well as the practicality and challenges of its use. There are also uncertainties and heterogeneity concerning the optimal practices of MDT meetings in ILD care. In this review, we describe recent developments refining the approach to MDTs in clinical practice, including who should be involved in the MDTs, when it is most needed, their use in patient management, challenges in their implementation, and ongoing controversies in the field that need further research.

Nintedanib in Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To inform an American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax clinical practice guideline, this systematic review evaluated existing interstitial lung disease (ILD) literature to determine whether patients with progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) should be treated with the antifibrotic nintedanib. Methods: A literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through December 2020 for studies using nintedanib to treat patients with PPF. Mortality, disease progression, and adverse event data were extracted, and meta-analyses performed when possible. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results: Two relevant studies were selected. The annual decline in FVC was less in the nintedanib arm in the overall study population [mean difference (MD) 107 milliliters (mL)/year (yr) (95% CI 65.4-148.5 mL/yr)] and in the subgroups with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern of pulmonary fibrosis [MD 128.2 mL/yr (95% CI 70.8-185.6 mL/yr)], non-UIP patterns of pulmonary fibrosis [MD 75.3 mL/yr (95% CI 15.5-135.0 mL/yr)], fibrotic connective tissue disease-related ILD [MD 106.2 mL/yr (95% CI 10.6-201.9 mL/yr)], fibrotic idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia [MD 141.7 mL/yr (95% CI 46.0-237.4 mL/yr)], and fibrotic occupational ILD [MD 252.8 mL/yr (95% CI 79.2-426.5 mL/yr)], but not fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis [MD 72.9 mL/yr (95% CI -8.9-154.7 mL/yr)], fibrotic sarcoidosis [MD -20.5 mL/yr (95% CI -337.1-296.1 mL/yr)], or unclassified fibrotic ILD [MD 68.5 mL/yr (95% CI -31.3-168.4 mL/yr)] when compared to placebo. Gastrointestinal (GI) side effects were common. Quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from very low to moderate GRADE. Conclusions: Nintedanib use in patients with PPF is associated with a statistically significant decrease in disease progression but increase in GI side effects regardless of the radiographic pattern of pulmonary fibrosis. However, limitations in the available evidence lead to low certainty in these effect estimates and make definitive conclusions about the differential effects by subtype of ILD difficult to determine.

Pirfenidone in Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To inform an American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax clinical practice guideline, this systematic review evaluated existing interstitial lung disease literature to determine whether patients with progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) should be treated with the antifibrotic pirfenidone. Methods: A literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through December 2020 for studies using pirfenidone to treat patients with PPF. Mortality, disease progression, lung function, and adverse event data were extracted, and meta-analyses performed when possible. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results: Two studies met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses revealed changes in FVC % predicted [mean difference (MD) 2.3% (95% CI 0.5-4.1)], FVC in mL [MD 100.0 mL (95% CI 98.1-101.9)], and 6MWD in meters [MD 25.2 m (95% CI 8.3-42.1)] all favored pirfenidone to placebo. Change in DLCO in mmol/kPa/min [MD 0.40 mmol/kPa/min (95% CI 0.10-0.70)] and risk of DLCO declining more than 15% [relative risk (RR) 0.27 (95% CI 0.08-0.95)] also favored pirfenidone. The risks of gastrointestinal discomfort [RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.29-2.60)] and photosensitivity [RR 4.88 (95% CI 1.09-21.83)] were higher with pirfenidone. The quality of evidence was low or very low GRADE, depending on the outcome. Conclusions: Pirfenidone use in patients with PPF is associated with statistically significant decrease in disease progression and protection in lung function. However, there is very low certainty in the estimated effects due to limitations in the available evidence.