Nintedanib in children and adolescents with fibrosing interstitial lung diseases.

Childhood interstitial lung disease comprises a spectrum of rare ILDs affecting infants, children and adolescents. Nintedanib is a licensed treatment for pulmonary fibrosis in adults. The primary objectives of the InPedILD trial were to determine the dose-exposure and safety of nintedanib in children and adolescents with fibrosing ILD. Patients aged 6-17 years with fibrosing ILD on HRCT and clinically significant disease were randomised 2:1 to receive nintedanib or placebo for 24 weeks then open-label nintedanib. Dosing was based on weight-dependent allometric scaling. Co-primary endpoints were the area under the plasma concentration-time curve at steady state (AUCτ,ss) at weeks 2 and 26 and the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events at week 24. Twenty-six patients received nintedanib and 13 placebo. The geometric mean (gCV%) AUCτ,ss for nintedanib was 175 µg×h·L-1 (85.1) in patients aged 6-11 years and 160 µg×h·L-1 (82.7) in patients aged 12-17 years. In the double-blind period, adverse events were reported in 84.6% of patients in each treatment group. Two patients discontinued nintedanib due to adverse events. Diarrhoea was reported in 38.5% and 15.4% of the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively. Adjusted mean (se) changes in FVC % predicted at week 24 were 0.3 (1.3) in the nintedanib group and -0.9 (1.8) in the placebo group. In conclusion, in children and adolescents with fibrosing ILD, a weight-based dosing regimen resulted in exposure to nintedanib similar to adults and an acceptable safety profile. These data provide a scientific basis for the use of nintedanib in this patient population.

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.

Phase 2B Study of Inhaled RVT-1601 for Chronic Cough in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Study (SCENIC Trial).

Rationale: Chronic cough remains a major and often debilitating symptom for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). In a phase 2A study, inhaled RVT-1601 (cromolyn sodium) reduced daytime cough and 24-hour average cough counts in patients with IPF. Objectives: To determine the efficacy, safety, and optimal dose of inhaled RVT-1601 for the treatment of chronic cough in patients with IPF. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2B study, patients with IPF and chronic cough for ⩾8 weeks were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive 10, 40, and 80 mg RVT-1601 three times daily or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to end of treatment in log-transformed 24-hour cough count. Key secondary endpoints were change from baseline in cough severity and cough-specific quality of life. Safety was monitored throughout the study. Measurements and Main Results: The study was prematurely terminated owing to the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Overall, 108 patients (mean age 71.0 years, 62.9% males) received RVT-1601 10 mg (n = 29), 40 mg (n = 25), 80 mg (n = 27), or matching placebo (n = 27); 61.1% (n = 66) completed double-blind treatment. No statistically significant difference was observed in the least-square mean change from baseline in log-transformed 24-hour average cough count, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life score between the RVT-1601 groups and the placebo group. The mean percentage change from baseline in 24-hour average cough count was 27.7% in the placebo group. Treatment was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: Treatment with inhaled RVT-1601 (10, 40, and 80 mg three times a day) did not provide benefit over placebo for the treatment of chronic cough in patients with IPF.

Effect of Antimicrobial Therapy on Respiratory Hospitalization or Death in Adults With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: The CleanUP-IPF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Alteration in lung microbes is associated with disease progression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Objective: To assess the effect of antimicrobial therapy on clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, randomized, unblinded clinical trial conducted across 35 US sites. A total of 513 patients older than 40 years were randomized from August 2017 to June 2019 (final follow-up was January 2020). Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive antimicrobials (n = 254) or usual care alone (n = 259). Antimicrobials included co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim 160 mg/sulfamethoxazole 800 mg twice daily plus folic acid 5 mg daily, n = 128) or doxycycline (100 mg once daily if body weight <50 kg or 100 mg twice daily if ≥50 kg, n = 126). No placebo was administered in the usual care alone group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first nonelective respiratory hospitalization or all-cause mortality. Results: Among the 513 patients who were randomized (mean age, 71 years; 23.6% women), all (100%) were included in the analysis. The study was terminated for futility on December 18, 2019. After a mean follow-up time of 13.1 months (median, 12.7 months), a total of 108 primary end point events occurred: 52 events (20.4 events per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 14.8-25.9]) in the usual care plus antimicrobial therapy group and 56 events (18.4 events per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 13.2-23.6]) in the usual care group, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.71-1.53; P = .83]. There was no statistically significant interaction between the effect of the prespecified antimicrobial agent (co-trimoxazole vs doxycycline) on the primary end point (adjusted HR, 1.15 [95% CI 0.68-1.95] in the co-trimoxazole group vs 0.82 [95% CI, 0.46-1.47] in the doxycycline group; P = .66). Serious adverse events occurring at 5% or greater among those treated with usual care plus antimicrobials vs usual care alone included respiratory events (16.5% vs 10.0%) and infections (2.8% vs 6.6%); adverse events of special interest included diarrhea (10.2% vs 3.1%) and rash (6.7% vs 0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the addition of co-trimoxazole or doxycycline to usual care, compared with usual care alone, did not significantly improve time to nonelective respiratory hospitalization or death. These findings do not support treatment with these antibiotics for the underlying disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759120.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Clinical Trial Oversight at a Major Academic Medical Center: Approach of Michigan Medicine.

Clinicians, eager to offer the best care in the absence of guiding data, have provided patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diverse clinical interventions. This usage has led to perceptions of efficacy of some interventions that, while receiving media coverage, lack robust evidence. Moving forward, randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to ensure that clinicians can treat patients effectively during this outbreak and the next. To do so, academic medical centers must address 2 key research issues: (1) how to effectively and efficiently determine which trials have the best chance of benefiting current and future patients and (2) how to establish a transparent and ethical process for subject recruitment while maintaining research integrity and without overburdening patients or staff. We share here the current methods used by Michigan Medicine to address these issues.