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.

Loss of smell in patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease impacts mental health and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The impact of anosmia on quality-of-life (QoL) for patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is poorly understood. We aimed to investigate how the severity of smell loss and olfactory dysfunction (OD) in patients with AERD affects their QoL, mental health and physical well-being. METHODS: Five validated QoL questionnaires (Sinonasal Outcome Test-22, Asthma Control Test, Healthy Days Core Module-4, Short Form-36 and Patient Health Questionnaire-4) and two newly developed questionnaires assessing severity and consequences of OD were electronically sent to all 2913 patients in the Brigham and Women's Hospital AERD registry. Responses were received from 853 participants for analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 85% of participants reported a present diminished sense of smell and/or taste, and 30% categorized their OD severity was, "as bad as it can be." There were significant relationships between the severity of self-reported OD and both psychological distress and general health scores, even after adjusting for asthma control. Additionally, incidence rates for physically and mentally unhealthy days in the prior month were higher for patients with moderate or severe OD than for normosmic patients. Patients with diminished smell responded that they could not identify spoiled food (86%), did not enjoy food (71%), felt unsafe (63%) and had encountered dangerous situations (51%) as consequences of their OD. CONCLUSIONS: Anosmia and hyposmia severely impact the physical, emotional and mental health of AERD patients, and lead to safety concerns in their daily lives. The importance of olfaction and the relevance of OD to patients' QoL should be acknowledged and evaluated by clinicians caring for these patients.