Home monitoring in interstitial lung diseases.

The widespread use of smartphones and the internet has enabled self-monitoring and more hybrid-care models. The COVID-19 pandemic has further accelerated remote monitoring, including in the heterogenous and often vulnerable group of patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Home monitoring in ILD has the potential to improve access to specialist care, reduce the burden on health-care systems, improve quality of life for patients, identify acute and chronic disease worsening, guide treatment decisions, and simplify clinical trials. Home spirometry has been used in ILD for several years and studies with other devices (such as pulse oximeters, activity trackers, and cough monitors) have emerged. At the same time, challenges have surfaced, including technical, analytical, and implementational issues. In this Series paper, we provide an overview of experiences with home monitoring in ILD, address the challenges and limitations for both care and research, and provide future perspectives. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

[SARS-CoV-2-Infection and Interstitial Lung Disease: Position paper of the German Respiratory Society]. / SARS-CoV-2-Infektion und interstitielle Lungenerkrankungen ­ Positionspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a tremendous impact on diagnosis and treatment of interstitial lung diseases (ILD). Especially in the early phase of the pandemic, when the delta variant was prevailling, a huge number of viral pneumonias were observed, which worsened pre-existing, triggered de novo occurence or discovery of previously subclincal interstitial lung diseases. The effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection - without or with accompanying viral pneumonia - on the further development of pre-existing ILD as well of new pulmonary inflitrates and consolidiations is difficult to predict and poses a daily challenge to interdisciplinary ILD boards. This position paper of the German Respiratory Society (DGP e.V.) provides answers to the most pressing questions based on current knowledge.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-containing plasma improves outcome in patients with hematologic or solid cancer and severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.

Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with high morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, impaired humoral response renders severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE ) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 134) within four risk groups ((1) cancer (n = 56); (2) immunosuppression (n = 16); (3) laboratory-based risk factors (n = 36); and (4) advanced age (n = 26)) randomized to standard of care (control arm) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (plasma arm). No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29; P = 0.205). However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50; P = 0.003) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28; P = 0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer (P = 0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer who are unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.

A review of the challenges, learnings and future directions of home handheld spirometry in interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular physician visits and referral to specialist ILD clinics. Difficulties or delays in accessing care can limit opportunities to monitor disease trajectory and response to treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has added to these challenges. Therefore, home monitoring technologies, such as home handheld spirometry, have gained increased attention as they may help to improve access to care for patients with ILD. However, while several studies have shown that home handheld spirometry in ILD is acceptable for most patients, data from clinical trials are not sufficiently robust to support its use as a primary endpoint. This review discusses the challenges that were encountered with handheld spirometry across three recent ILD studies, which included home spirometry as a primary endpoint, and highlights where further optimisation and research into home handheld spirometry in ILD is required. Rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) as measured by daily home handheld spirometry versus site spirometry was of primary interest in three recently completed studies: STARLINER (NCT03261037), STARMAP and a Phase II study of pirfenidone in progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD (NCT03099187). Unanticipated practical and technical issues led to problems with estimating FVC decline. In all three studies, cross-sectional correlations for home handheld versus site spirometry were strong/moderate at baseline and later timepoints, but longitudinal correlations were weak. Other issues observed with the home handheld spirometry data included: high within-patient variability in home handheld FVC measurements; implausible longitudinal patterns in the home handheld spirometry data that were not reflected in site spirometry; and extreme estimated rates of FVC change. CONCLUSIONS: Home handheld spirometry in ILD requires further optimisation and research to ensure accurate and reliable FVC measurements before it can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials. Refresher training, automated alerts of problems and FVC changes, and patient support could help to overcome some practical issues. Despite the challenges, there is value in incorporating home handheld spirometry into clinical practice, and the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential for home monitoring technologies to help improve access to care for patients with ILD.

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.

Gender Differences in Health Care Workers' Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs for COVID-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in vaccine acceptance among health care workers (HCWs) are well documented, but the extent to which these depend on occupational group membership is less well studied. We aimed to determine vaccine acceptance and reasons of hesitancy among HCWs of respiratory clinics in Germany with respect to gender and occupational group membership. METHODS: An online questionnaire for hospital staff of all professional groups was created to assess experiences with and attitudes towards COVID-19 and the available vaccines. Employees of five clinics were surveyed from 15 to 28 March 2021. RESULTS: 962 employees (565 [72%] female) took part in the survey. Overall vaccination acceptance was 72.8%. Nurses and physicians showed greater willingness to be vaccinated than members of other professions (72.8%, 84.5%, 65.8%, respectively; p = 0.006). In multivariate analyses, worries about COVID-19 late effects (odds ratio (OR) 2.86; p < 0.001) and affiliation with physicians (OR 2.20; p = 0.025) were independently associated with the willingness for vaccination, whereas age <35 years (OR 0.61; p = 0.022) and worries about late effects of vaccination (OR 0.13; p < 0.001) predicted vaccination hesitancy; no differences were seen with respect to gender. In separate analyses for men and women, only for men worries about COVID-19 late effects were relevant, while among women, age <35 years, worries about late effects of vaccination and worries about COVID-19 late effects played a role. CONCLUSIONS: There was no overall difference in vaccination acceptance between male and female HCWs, but there were gender-specific differences in the individual reasons on which this decision-making was based.

Worldwide experiences and opinions of healthcare providers on eHealth for patients with interstitial lung diseases in the COVID-19 era.

The #COVID19 pandemic has led to an increase in the use of eHealth for patients with interstitial lung disease. Healthcare providers worldwide are positive towards further implementation of eHealth for research and clinical practice. https://bit.ly/3h2545M.

Host factors facilitating SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and replication in the lungs.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus causing the major pandemic facing the world today. Although, SARS-CoV-2 primarily causes lung infection, a variety of symptoms have proven a systemic impact on the body. SARS-CoV-2 has spread in the community quickly infecting humans from all age, ethnicities and gender. However, fatal outcomes have been linked to specific host factors and co-morbidities such as age, hypertension, immuno-deficiencies, chronic lung diseases or metabolic disorders. A major shift in the microbiome of patients suffering of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have also been observed and is linked to a worst outcome of the disease. As many co-morbidities are already known to be associated with a dysbiosis of the microbiome such as hypertension, diabetes and metabolic disorders. Host factors and microbiome changes are believed to be involved as a network in the acquisition of the infection and the development of the diseases. We will review in detail in this manuscript, the immune response toward SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the host factors involved in the facilitation and worsening of the infection. We will also address the impact of COVID-19 on the host's microbiome and secondary infection which also worsen the disease.

Outcome of Hospitalization for COVID-19 in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease. An International Multicenter Study.

Rationale: The impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) has not been established.Objectives: To assess outcomes in patients with ILD hospitalized for COVID-19 versus those without ILD in a contemporaneous age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched population.Methods: An international multicenter audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 between March 1 and May 1, 2020, was undertaken and compared with patients without ILD, obtained from the ISARIC4C (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis from non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death.Measurements and Main Results: Data from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to the hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching, patients with ILD with COVID-19 had significantly poorer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; confidence interval, 1.17-2.18; P = 0.003) than age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched controls without ILD. Patients with an FVC of <80% had an increased risk of death versus patients with FVC ≥80% (HR, 1.72; 1.05-2.83). Furthermore, obese patients with ILD had an elevated risk of death (HR, 2.27; 1.39-3.71).Conclusions: Patients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD.

SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 and TMPRSS2 are primarily expressed in bronchial transient secretory cells.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affecting the human respiratory system severely challenges public health and urgently demands for increasing our understanding of COVID-19 pathogenesis, especially host factors facilitating virus infection and replication. SARS-CoV-2 was reported to enter cells via binding to ACE2, followed by its priming by TMPRSS2. Here, we investigate ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression levels and their distribution across cell types in lung tissue (twelve donors, 39,778 cells) and in cells derived from subsegmental bronchial branches (four donors, 17,521 cells) by single nuclei and single cell RNA sequencing, respectively. While TMPRSS2 is strongly expressed in both tissues, in the subsegmental bronchial branches ACE2 is predominantly expressed in a transient secretory cell type. Interestingly, these transiently differentiating cells show an enrichment for pathways related to RHO GTPase function and viral processes suggesting increased vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our data provide a rich resource for future investigations of COVID-19 infection and pathogenesis.