Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pirfenidone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Interstitial lung disease is a known complication of rheumatoid arthritis, with a lifetime risk of developing the disease in any individual of 7·7%. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pirfenidone for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). METHODS: TRAIL1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial done in 34 academic centres specialising in interstitial lung disease in four countries (the UK, the USA, Australia, and Canada). Adults aged 18-85 years were eligible for inclusion if they met the 2010 American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and had interstitial lung disease on a high-resolution CT scan imaging and, when available, lung biopsy. Exclusion criteria include smoking, clinical history of other known causes of interstitial lung disease, and coexistant clinically significant COPD or asthma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2403 mg oral pirfenidone (pirfenidone group) or placebo (placebo group) daily. The primary endpoint was the incidence of the composite endpoint of a decline from baseline in percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) of 10% or more or death during the 52-week treatment period assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary endpoints included change in absolute and FVC% over 52 weeks, the proportion of patients with a decline in FVC% of 10% or more, and the frequency of progression as defined by Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02808871. FINDINGS: From May 15, 2017, to March 31, 2020, 231 patients were assessed for inclusion, of whom 123 patients were randomly assigned (63 [51%] to the pirfenidone group and 60 [49%] to the placebo group). The trial was stopped early (March 31, 2020) due to slow recruitment and the COVID-19 pandemic. The difference in the proportion of patients who met the composite primary endpoint (decline in FVC% from baseline of 10% or more or death) between the two groups was not significant (seven [11%] of 63 patients in the pirfenidone group vs nine [15%] of 60 patients in the placebo group; OR 0·67 [95% CI 0·22 to 2·03]; p=0·48). Compared with the placebo group, patients in the pirfenidone group had a slower rate of decline in lung function, measured by estimated annual change in absolute FVC (-66 vs -146; p=0·0082) and FVC% (-1·02 vs -3·21; p=0·0028). The groups were similar with regards to the decline in FVC% by 10% or more (five [8%] participants in the pirfenidone group vs seven [12%] in the placebo group; OR 0·52 [95% CI 0·14-1·90]; p=0·32) and the frequency of progression as defined by OMERACT (16 [25%] in the pirfenidone group vs 19 [32%] in the placebo group; OR 0·68 [0·30-1·54]; p=0·35). There was no significant difference in the rate of treatment-emergent serious adverse events between the two groups, and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Due to early termination of the study and underpowering, the results should be interpreted with caution. Despite not meeting the composite primary endpoint, pirfenidone slowed the rate of decline of FVC over time in patients with RA-ILD. Safety in patients with RA-ILD was similar to that seen in other pirfenidone trials. FUNDING: Genentech.

The telemedicine experience: using principles of clinical excellence to identify disparities and optimize care.

ABSTRACT: The use of telemedicine has increased significantly during the Corona virus disease 2019 pandemic. This manuscript serves to identify the underlying principles of clinical excellence in telemedicine and to determine whether effective care practices can be generalized as a one-size-fits-all model or must instead be tailored to individual patient populations.A survey assessing care quality and patient satisfaction for patients using telemedicine was created and administered via email to 2 urban cohorts of varying demographics and socioeconomic backgrounds: a population of patients with prior stroke and cerebrovascular disease, and a cohort of patients followed for interstitial lung disease. Results were compared across groups to determine the generalizability of effective practices across populations.Individuals taking part in telemedicine were more likely to be White, more affluent, and woman, regardless of clinical diagnosis compared with a similar cohort of patients seen in-person the year prior. A lower-than-expected number of patients who were Black and of lower socioeconomic status followed up virtually, indicating potential barriers to access. Overall, patients who participated in televisits were satisfied with the experience and felt that the care met their medical needs; however, those who were older were more likely to experience technical difficulties and prefer in-person visits, while those with less education were less likely to feel that their questions were addressed in an understandable way.When thoughtfully designed, telemedicine practices can be an effective model for patient care, though implementation must consider population characteristics including age, education, and socioeconomic status, and strategies such as ease of access versus optimization of communication strategies should be tailored to meet individual patient needs.

Presence and Implications of Anti-Angiotensin Converting Enzyme-2 Immunoglobulin M Antibodies in Anti-Melanoma-Differentiation-Associated 5 Dermatomyositis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with anti-melanoma-differentiation-associated 5 (anti-MDA5)-positive dermatomyositis (DM) share several striking similarities to patients with SARS-CoV-2. Our objective was to assess the prevalence of anti-angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies, found in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2, in two independent anti-MDA5-positive DM cohorts. METHODS: Anti-ACE2 IgM antibodies were assayed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in two anti-MDA5-positive DM cohorts: a predominantly outpatient North American cohort (n = 52) and a Japanese cohort enriched for new-onset disease (n = 32). Additionally, 118 patients with SARS-CoV-2 with a spectrum of clinical severity were tested for anti-MDA5 antibodies by ELISA. RESULTS: Five of fifty-two (9.6%) North American patients and five of thirty-two (15%) Japanese patients were positive for anti-ACE2 IgM. In the North American cohort, all five patients with anti-ACE2 IgM antibodies had proximal muscle weakness, had interstitial lung disease, were significantly more likely to receive pulse dose methylprednisolone (80% vs 30%, P = 0.043), and had worse forced vital capacity (median 59% predicted vs 78%, P = 0.056) compared with the anti-ACE2-IgM-negative group. In the Japanese cohort, all five anti-ACE2-IgM-positive patients also required pulse dose methylprednisolone, and three of five (60%) patients died. Japanese patients with anti-ACE2 IgM had significantly worse oxygenation, as defined by a lower partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio (233 vs 390, P = 0.021), and a higher alveolar-arterial oxygenation gradient (91 vs 23 mm Hg, P = 0.024) than the IgM-negative group. CONCLUSION: We describe anti-ACE2 IgM autoantibodies in two independent cohorts with anti-MDA5-positive DM. These autoantibodies may be biomarkers for severe disease and provide insight into disease pathogenesis.