As the short telomere defect has been linked to the pathogenesis of IPF in some cases, our data indicate that impaired CMV immunity may be a systemic manifestation of telomere-mediated disease in these patients. Identifying this high-risk subset of lung transplant recipients has implications for risk assessment, management and potential strategies for averting posttransplant CMV morbidities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused acute lung injury in millions of individuals worldwide. Some patients develop COVID-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) and cannot be liberated from mechanical ventilation. Others may develop post-COVID fibrosis resulting in substantial disability and need for long-term supplemental oxygen. In both of these situations, treatment teams often inquire about the possibility of lung transplantation. In fact, lung transplantation has been successfully employed for both CARDS and post-COVID fibrosis in a limited number of patients worldwide. Lung transplantation following COVID infection presents a number of unique challenges that transplant programs must consider. In those with severe CARDS, the inability to conduct proper psychosocial evaluation and pre-transplant education, marked deconditioning from critical illness, and infectious concerns regarding viral re-activation are major hurdles. In those with post-COVID fibrosis, our limited knowledge about the natural history of recovery following COVID-19 infection is problematic. Increased knowledge of the likelihood and degree of recovery following COVID-19 acute lung injury is essential for appropriate decision making with regard to transplant. Transplant physicians must weigh the risks and benefits of lung transplant differently in a post-COVID fibrosis patient who is likely to remain stable or gradually improve in comparison to a patient with a known progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (fILD). It is clear that lung transplantation can be a life-saving therapeutic option for some patients with severe lung injury from COVID-19 infection. In this review, we discuss how lung transplant providers from a number of experienced centers approach lung transplantation for CARDS or post-COVID fibrosis.

Background. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in >72 million cases and 1.6 million deaths. End-stage lung disease from COVID-19 is a new and growing entity that may benefit from lung transplant; however, there are limited data on the patient selection, perioperative management, and expected outcomes of transplantation for this indication. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was performed with searches of MEDLINE and Web of Science databases as well as the gray literature. All manuscripts, editorials, commentaries, and gray literature reports of lung transplantation for COVID-related respiratory failure were included. A case from the University of Virginia is described and included in the review. Results. A total of 27 studies were included: 11 manuscripts, 5 commentaries, and 11 gray literature reports. The total number of transplantations for COVID-related lung disease was 21. The mean age was 55±12 years, 16 (76%) were male individuals, and the acuity was high, with 85% on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation preoperatively. There was a 95% early survival rate, with 1 additional late death. There is growing histopathologic evidence for permanent structural damage with no replicating virus at the time of transplantation. Conclusions. Bilateral lung transplantation is an effective treatment option with reasonable short-term outcomes for patients with end-stage lung failure secondary to COVID-19. However, specific considerations in this new population require a multidisciplinary approach. As we move into the second wave of the COVID-19 global pandemic, lung transplantation will likely have a growing role in management of these complex patients.

ImportanceThere is a major need for effective, well-tolerated treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat in patients with IPF.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe 2 identically designed, phase 3, randomized clinical trials, ISABELA 1 and ISABELA 2, were conducted in Africa, Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America (26 countries). A total of 1306 patients with IPF were randomized (525 patients at 106 sites in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients at 121 sites in ISABELA 2). Enrollment began in November 2018 in both trials and follow-up was completed early due to study termination on April 12, 2021, for ISABELA 1 and on March 30, 2021, for ISABELA 2.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 600 mg of oral ziritaxestat, 200 mg of ziritaxestat, or placebo once daily in addition to local standard of care (pirfenidone, nintedanib, or neither) for at least 52 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the annual rate of decline for forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 52. The key secondary outcomes were disease progression, time to first respiratory-related hospitalization, and change from baseline in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate poorer health-related quality of life).ResultsAt the time of study termination, 525 patients were randomized in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients in ISABELA 2 (mean age: 70.0 [SD, 7.2] years in ISABELA 1 and 69.8 [SD, 7.1] years in ISABELA 2; male: 82.4% and 81.2%, respectively). The trials were terminated early after an independent data and safety monitoring committee concluded that the benefit to risk profile of ziritaxestat no longer supported their continuation. Ziritaxestat did not improve the annual rate of FVC decline vs placebo in either study. In ISABELA 1, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was –124.6 mL (95% CI, −178.0 to −71.2 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs –147.3 mL (95% CI, −199.8 to −94.7 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 22.7 mL [95% CI, −52.3 to 97.6 mL]), and –173.9 mL (95% CI, −225.7 to −122.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, −26.7 mL [95% CI, −100.5 to 47.1 mL]). In ISABELA 2, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was –173.8 mL (95% CI, −209.2 to −138.4 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs –176.6 mL (95% CI, −211.4 to −141.8 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 2.8 mL [95% CI, −46.9 to 52.4 mL]) and –174.9 mL (95% CI, −209.5 to −140.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, 1.7 mL [95% CI, −47.4 to 50.8 mL]). There was no benefit with ziritaxestat vs placebo for the key secondary outcomes. In ISABELA 1, all-cause mortality was 8.0% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 4.6% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 6.3% with placebo; in ISABELA 2, it was 9.3% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 8.5% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 4.7% with placebo.Conclusions and RelevanceZiritaxestat did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo in patients with IPF receiving standard of care treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib or in those not receiving standard of care treatment.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03711162 and NCT03733444