Targeted therapy for chronic respiratory disease: a new paradigm

Clinical characteristics of patients with chronic eosinophilic pneumonia in a Chinese tertiary-care hospital: A 6-year retrospective study

Introduction

Chronic eosinophilic pneumonia (CEP) is a rare disease with unknown etiology. Due to lack of specificity of CEP symptoms, clinicians are not experienced in establishing its diagnosis.

Objectives

To summarize the clinical data of CEP patients to improve the understanding of CEP and reduce misdiagnosis.

Methods

Data of patients pathologically diagnosed with CEP in the PLA General Hospital between May 2013 and May 2019 were collected, and clinical manifestations, imaging characteristics, pathological features, and treatment were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Twenty patients, including 6 males and 14 females, were diagnosed with CEP. The average age was 47.0 ± 10.2 years. The main clinical manifestations were cough and dyspnea. The average duration of CEP was 15.5 ± 11.5 months. The average proportion of eosinophils in the peripheral blood was 18.9 ± 17.8%, and the average proportion of eosinophils in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was 41.5 ± 19.4%. The main imaging features were patchy shadows and consolidation shadows. The most common manifestations on bronchoscopic examination were congestion and edema of the bronchial mucosa. Two patients had granular protrusions of the endotracheal membrane. Histological examination indicated infiltration of numerous eosinophils. All patients improved after prednisone therapy.

Conclusion

CEP onset is insidious, and clinical manifestations lack specificity. Typical imaging features are peripheral and subpleural distribution of lung infiltrates. Some patients have a normal proportion of eosinophils in the peripheral blood, but most have an increased number of eosinophils in the BALF, which contributes to CEP diagnosis. A biopsy is necessary when differential diagnosis is difficult. A systemic glucocorticoid is effective.

Treatable traits: a new paradigm for 21st century management of chronic airway diseases: Treatable Traits Down Under International Workshop report

"Treatable traits" have been proposed as a new paradigm for the management of airway diseases, particularly complex disease, which aims to apply personalised medicine to each individual to improve outcomes. Moving new treatment approaches from concepts to practice is challenging, but necessary. In an effort to accelerate progress in research and practice relating to the treatable traits approach, the Treatable Traits Down Under International Workshop was convened in Melbourne, Australia in May 2018. Here, we report the key concepts and research questions that emerged in discussions during the meeting. We propose a programme of research that involves gaining international consensus on candidate traits, recognising the prevalence of traits, and identifying a potential hierarchy of traits based on their clinical impact and responsiveness to treatment. We also reflect on research methods and designs that can generate new knowledge related to efficacy of the treatable traits approach and consider multidisciplinary models of care that may aid its implementation into practice.

Comparing effectiveness and outcomes in asthma and cystic fibrosis

As technology yields new treatments, pediatric pulmonologists need determine how best to use them and how to decide which ones are best for any specific group or individual patient. Physicians have always customized therapies based upon patient response, but the new concept of "Personalized (or precision) medicine" focuses attention to a greater degree on the individual needs of patients based on their genetic, biomarker, phenotypic, or psychosocial characteristics. The newly developed biologics for treatment of asthma and CFTR modulators for treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF) highlight this newer approach. As we have more treatments available, new approaches to testing efficacy and effectiveness of these new therapies is necessary in order to efficiently bring them to market and compare their benefits in real world practice. While comparative effectiveness can be tested in pragmatic clinic trials, the most common approaches make use of observational data such as administrative databases and patient registries but their use for this is fraught with pitfalls that may or may not be methodologically surmountable. Once new therapies have been shown to be efficacious and effective, it is important to be cognizant of methods for ensuring that all patients actually receive the treatments that will be best for them. Comparisons of the effectiveness of clinical practice in the form of benchmarking is helpful for this, and consideration of costs and cost-effectiveness is essential to judging the best treatment for patients in a real-world setting.