Safdar, Zeenat

ABSTRACT Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a common complication in interstitial lung disease (ILD), but the additional burden it imposes on patients and healthcare systems is not well characterized. This retrospective analysis of claims data from the US Merative MarketScan database assessed hospitalization rates and costs over 2 years in patients with connective tissue disease‐related ILD (CTD‐ILD) and non‐CTD‐ILD with or without PH (between January 2017 and December 2019). Index was the date of first ILD claim; baseline was the 12‐month preindex period. In total, 16,129 patients with non‐CTD‐ILD (1502 [9%] with PH) and 4545 patients with CTD‐ILD (663 [15%] with PH) were identified. A higher proportion of patients with non‐CTD‐ILD with PH, compared with patients without PH, had all‐cause and heart failure (HF)‐related hospitalizations during baseline (all‐cause, 37.0% vs. 22.3%; HF‐related, 14.2% vs. 3.1%), 0–12 months (62.4% vs. 43.0%; 29.0% vs. 7.0%), and 13–24 months (44.7% vs. 18.3%; 21.5% vs. 3.2%) follow‐up ( p < 0.0001 for all). A significantly higher proportion of patients with CTD‐ILD with PH, compared with patients without PH, had all‐cause and HF‐related hospitalizations during baseline (all‐cause: 30.0% vs. 20.6%; HF‐related: 9.1% vs. 1.9%), 0–12 months (41.9% vs. 29.1%; 15.5% vs. 3.9%), and 13–24 months (37.9% vs. 18.9%; 13.9% vs. 2.5%) follow‐up ( p < 0.0001 for all). In both cohorts, total all‐cause and HF‐related costs were significantly higher in patients with PH at baseline, 0–12 months, and 13–24 months follow‐up ( p < 0.05 for all). PH substantially increased hospitalization risks and costs in both types of ILD, underscoring the importance of improving outcomes in patients with ILD‐PH.

AbstractDual combination therapy with a phosphodiesterase‐5 inhibitor (PDE5i) and endothelin receptor antagonist is recommended for most patients with intermediate‐risk pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The RESPITE and REPLACE studies suggest that switching from a PDE5i to a soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) activator may provide clinical improvement in this situation. The optimal approach to escalation or transition of therapy in this or other scenarios is not well defined. We developed an expert consensus statement on the transition to sGC and other treatment escalations and transitions in PAH using a modified Delphi process. The Delphi process used a panel of 20 physicians with expertise in PAH. Panelists answered three questionnaires on the management of treatment escalations and transitions in PAH. The initial questionnaire included open‐ended questions. Later questionnaires consolidated the responses into statements that panelists rated on a Likert scale from −5 (strongly disagree) to +5 (strongly agree) to determine consensus. The Delphi process produced several consensus recommendations. Escalation should be considered for patients who are at high risk or not achieving treatment goals, by adding an agent from a new class, switching from oral to parenteral prostacyclins, or increasing the dose. Switching to a new class or within a class should be considered if tolerability or other considerations unrelated to efficacy are affecting adherence. Switching from a PDE5i to an SGC activator may benefit patients with intermediate risk who are not improving on their present therapy. These consensus‐based recommendations may be helpful to clinicians and beneficial for patients when evidence‐based guidance is unavailable.

Abstract Diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD) requires a multidisciplinary discussion approach that includes clinicians, radiologists, and pathologists. Surgical lung biopsy (SLB) is currently the recommended standard in obtaining pathologic specimens for patients with ILD requiring a tissue diagnosis. The increased diagnostic confidence and accuracy provided by microscopic pathology assessment of SLB specimens must be balanced with the associated risks in patients with ILD. This document was developed by the SLB Working Group of the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, composed of a multidisciplinary group of ILD physicians, including pulmonologists, radiologists, pathologists, and thoracic surgeons. In this document, we present an up-to-date literature review of the indications, contraindications, risks, and alternatives to SLB in the diagnosis of fibrotic ILD; outline an integrated approach to the decision-making around SLB in the diagnosis of fibrotic ILD; and provide practical information to maximize the yield and safety of SLB.

Abstract Rationale Patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) typically undergo frequent clinical evaluation. The incidence and outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its impact on routine management for patients with pulmonary vascular disease is currently unknown. Objectives To assess the cumulative incidence and outcomes of recognized COVID-19 for patients with PAH/CTEPH followed at accredited pulmonary hypertension centers, and to evaluate the pandemic's impact on clinic operations at these centers. Methods A survey was e-mailed to program directors of centers accredited by the Pulmonary Hypertension Association. Descriptive analyses and linear regression were used to analyze results. Results Seventy-seven center directors were successfully e-mailed a survey, and 58 responded (75%). The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 recognized in individuals with PAH/CTEPH was 2.9 cases per 1,000 patients, similar to the general U.S. population. In patients with PAH/CTEPH for whom COVID-19 was recognized, 30% were hospitalized and 12% died. These outcomes appear worse than the general population. A large impact on clinic operations was observed including fewer clinic visits and substantially increased use of telehealth. A majority of centers curtailed diagnostic testing and a minority limited new starts of medical therapy. Most centers did not use experimental therapies in patients with PAH/CTEPH diagnosed with COVID-19. Conclusions The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 recognized in patients with PAH/CTEPH appears similar to the broader population, although outcomes may be worse. Although the total number of patients with PAH/CTEPH recognized to have COVID-19 was small, the impact of COVID-19 on broader clinic operations, testing, and treatment was substantial.