Lee, Joyce S

Objective Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) can stabilize or improve lung function in systemic sclerosis–related interstitial lung disease (SSc‐ILD). We hypothesized that combining MMF with pirfenidone (PFD) would produce a significantly more rapid and/or greater improvement in lung function. Methods A randomized (1:1), double‐blind, placebo (PLA)‐controlled phase 2 trial was conducted in SSc‐ILD in which patients received PFD or PLA (801 mg three times daily) along with MMF (1,500 mg twice daily) for 18 months. The primary outcome was change in percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC‐%). Linear mixed‐effects models assessed treatment differences in a modified intention‐to‐treat population. Results Only fifty‐one of 150 intended subjects (34%) were randomized (MMF+PLA, n = 24; MMF+PFD, n = 27). The FVC‐% improved from baseline to 18 months by 2.24 ± 1.35 (least‐squares mean [LSM] ± SEM) in the MMF+PLA group and 2.09 ± 1.28 in the MMF+PFD group (LSM treatment difference −0.14; P = 0.93). Median time to achieve a ≥3% improvement in FVC‐% was numerically faster in the MMF+PFD versus MMF+PLA group (12.3 vs 17.8 months, respectively), but the difference was not significant ( P = 0.33). For secondary outcomes, only the change over 18 months in the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29‐item physical function score, favoring MMF+PFD, reached statistical significance ( P = 0.04). Although other related patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) numerically favored the MMF+PFD group, as did quantitative high‐resolution computed tomography measures of ILD, the differences between groups did not reach statistical significance. Early withdrawals from study medication and adverse events of special interest were numerically greater with MMF+PFD (n = 8 vs 2 and n = 20 vs 7, respectively). Conclusion In this underpowered study, there was no statistically significant treatment difference in overall change in FVC‐% between groups. MMF+PFD was not as well tolerated as MMF+PLA.

ImportanceIdentifying factors associated with resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic can inform targeted interventions and resource allocation for groups disproportionately affected by systemic inequities.ObjectiveTo examine factors associated with self-reported resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic in racially and ethnically diverse, community-dwelling US adults.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted as part of the Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R) study, which assessed the associations of the pandemic with self-reported resilience of participants from 14 established US prospective cohorts since January 2021. This report includes participants who responded to the self-reported resilience question on C4R questionnaires. Data was initially analyzed from October 2023 to May 2024, with updated analyses performed from August 2024 to April 2025.ExposureRace and ethnicity, behavior factors, health conditions, and social determinants of health measurements accessed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic through cohort visits and C4R questionnaires.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSelf-reported resilience was collected via 1 question (from the Brief Resilience Scale) in C4R questionnaires, “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times.” Participants who answered agree or strongly agree were classified as resilient, and those who reported neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree were classified as not resilient. Modified Poisson regression was performed to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) and access multivariable-adjusted associations with resilience.ResultsOf 31 045 participants (18 672 [60%] women; 10 746 [34.6%] aged <65 years), 1185 (3.8%) identified as American Indian, 6728 (21.7%) as Black, 293 (0.9%) as East Asian, 6311 (20.3%) as Hispanic, 565 (1.8%) as South Asian, and 15 961 (51.3%) as White; a total of 23 103 participants (74.4%) self-identified as resilient. Compared with White participants, Black and Hispanic participants had higher prevalence of self-reported resilience (adjusted PR [aPR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; aPR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; respectively) and American Indian and East Asian participants had lower prevalence (aPR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94; aPR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84; respectively). Higher education, being married or living as married, higher income, and overweight were also associated with higher prevalence of resilience. Being female, having diabetes, and being unemployed were associated with lower prevalence of self-reported resilience. Compared with participants with public insurance only, participants with private insurance had higher prevalence of resilience (aPR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). COVID-19 vaccination and infection statuses were not significantly associated with resilience. Modification analyses showed important racial and ethnic differences in how factors such as hypertension, marital status, and insurance status were associated with resilience.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 31 045 adults, self-reported resilience varied by race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors. These findings highlight the complex interplay of individual and social factors in shaping the perception of resilience.

Abstract Despite the availability of effective vaccines and a recent decrease in annual deaths, COVID-19 remains a leading cause of death. Serological studies provide insights into host immunobiology of adaptive immune response to infection, which holds promise for identifying high-risk individuals for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. We investigated correlates of anti-nucleocapsid antibody responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection in a US population-based meta-cohort of adults participating in longstanding National Institutes of Health–funded cohort studies. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were measured from dried blood spots collected between February 2021 and February 2023. Among 1419 Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean age (standard deviation) was 65.8 (12.1), 61% were women, and 42.8% self-reported membership in a race/ethnicity minority group. The proportion of participants reactive to nucleocapsid peaked at 69% by 4 months after infection and waned to only 44% ≥12 months after infection. Higher anti-nucleocapsid antibody response was associated with older age, Hispanic or American Indian Alaskan Native (vs White) race/ethnicity, lower income, lower education, former smoking, and higher anti-spike antibody levels. Asian race (vs White) and vaccination (even after infection) were associated with lower nucleocapsid reactivity. Neither vaccine manufacturer nor common cardiometabolic comorbidities were not associated with anti-nucleocapsid response. These findings inform the underlying immunobiology of adaptive immune response to infection, as well as the potential utility of anti-nucleocapsid antibody response for clinical practice and COVID-19 serosurveillance.

Abstract Rationale Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a complex and heterogeneous disease. Given this, we reasoned that differences in genetic profiles may be associated with unique clinical and radiologic features. Computational image analysis, sometimes referred to as radiomics, provides objective, quantitative assessments of radiologic features in subjects with pulmonary fibrosis. Objectives To determine if the genetic risk profile of patients with IPF identifies unique computational imaging phenotypes. Methods Participants with IPF were included in this study if they had genotype data and computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest available for computational image analysis. The extent of lung fibrosis and the likelihood of a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern were scored automatically using two separate, previously validated deep learning techniques for CT analysis. UIP pattern was also classified visually by radiologists according to established criteria. Results Among 329 participants with IPF, MUC5B and ZKSCAN1 were independently associated with the deep learning–based UIP score. None of the common variants were associated with fibrosis extent by computational imaging. We did not find an association between MUC5B or ZKSCAN1 and visually assessed UIP pattern. Conclusions Select genetic variants are associated with computer-based classification of UIP on CT in this IPF cohort. Analysis of radiologic features using deep learning may enhance our ability to identify important genotype–phenotype associations in fibrotic lung diseases.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ImportancePersistent symptoms and disability following SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as post–COVID-19 condition or “long COVID,” are frequently reported and pose a substantial personal and societal burden.ObjectiveTo determine time to recovery following SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify factors associated with recovery by 90 days.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor this prospective cohort study, standardized ascertainment of SARS-CoV-2 infection was conducted starting in April 1, 2020, across 14 ongoing National Institutes of Health–funded cohorts that have enrolled and followed participants since 1971. This report includes data collected through February 28, 2023, on adults aged 18 years or older with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.ExposurePreinfection health conditions and lifestyle factors assessed before and during the pandemic via prepandemic examinations and pandemic-era questionnaires.Main Outcomes and MeasuresProbability of nonrecovery by 90 days and restricted mean recovery times were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess multivariable-adjusted associations with recovery by 90 days.ResultsOf 4708 participants with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [13.8] years; 2952 women [62.7%]), an estimated 22.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-23.7%) did not recover by 90 days post infection. Median (IQR) time to recovery was 20 (8-75) days. By 90 days post infection, there were significant differences in restricted mean recovery time according to sociodemographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics, particularly by acute infection severity (outpatient vs critical hospitalization, 32.9 days [95% CI, 31.9-33.9 days] vs 57.6 days [95% CI, 51.9-63.3 days]; log-rank P < .001). Recovery by 90 days post infection was associated with vaccination prior to infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51) and infection during the sixth (Omicron variant) vs first wave (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.49). These associations were mediated by reduced severity of acute infection (33.4% and 17.6%, respectively). Recovery was unfavorably associated with female sex (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and prepandemic clinical cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). No significant multivariable-adjusted associations were observed for age, educational attainment, smoking history, obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or elevated depressive symptoms. Results were similar for reinfections.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, more than 1 in 5 adults did not recover within 3 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recovery within 3 months was less likely in women and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease and more likely in those with COVID-19 vaccination or infection during the Omicron variant wave.

Abstract Microaspiration, or silent aspiration, is commonly suspected in patients with refractory respiratory symptoms, including unexplained chronic cough, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiolitis, bronchiectasis, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. This suspicion is driven by the high prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in these otherwise disparate disorders. Frequently, patients receive aggressive treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease as a means of treating their underlying respiratory conditions, even in the absence of overt symptoms of reflux. However, clinical trials have not demonstrated a clear impact on outcomes with this strategy, and in some instances there may be potential for harm. Mechanistic studies have increasingly used gastric biomarkers obtained directly from the airways to confirm the association between reflux and respiratory disease, but results are limited by methodologic flaws and correlation. The best evidence of aspiration directly causing respiratory disorders is the histopathologic detection of foreign bodies. For most of the other chronic respiratory disorders, microaspiration may be uncommon or a secondary aggravating factor, as in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. In some cases, microaspiration is probably not a significant factor at all, such as in unexplained chronic cough. It is important to distinguish between conditions in which aspiration is primarily or directly causal and conditions in which aspiration may be indirectly aggravating, to help identify whether interventions targeting reflux and aspiration precautions should be recommended to patients. Our clinical review examines some of the evidence supporting reflux-aspiration as a mechanism for several chronic respiratory disorders and offers some management considerations when reflux-aspiration is suspected.

Abstract Female sex/gender is an undercharacterized variable in studies related to lung development and disease. Notwithstanding, many aspects of lung and sleep biology and pathobiology are impacted by female sex and female reproductive transitions. These may manifest as differential gene expression or peculiar organ development. Some conditions are more prevalent in women, such as asthma and insomnia, or, in the case of lymphangioleiomyomatosis, are seen almost exclusively in women. In other diseases, presentation differs, such as the higher frequency of exacerbations experienced by women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or greater cardiac morbidity among women with sleep-disordered breathing. Recent advances in -omics and behavioral science provide an opportunity to specifically address sex-based differences and explore research needs and opportunities that will elucidate biochemical pathways, thus enabling more targeted/personalized therapies. To explore the status of and opportunities for research in this area, the NHLBI, in partnership with the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health and the Office of Rare Diseases Research, convened a workshop of investigators in Bethesda, Maryland on September 18 and 19, 2017. At the workshop, the participants reviewed the current understanding of the biological, behavioral, and clinical implications of female sex and gender on lung and sleep health and disease, and formulated recommendations that address research gaps, with a view to achieving better health outcomes through more precise management of female patients with nonneoplastic lung disease. This report summarizes those discussions.