RationaleProgressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD) is characterised by progressive physiologic, symptomatic, and/or radiographic worsening. The real-world prevalence and characteristics of PF-ILD remain uncertain.MethodsPatients were enrolled from the Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis between 2015–2020. PF-ILD was defined as a relative forced vital capacity (FVC) decline ≥10%, death, lung transplantation, or any 2 of: relative FVC decline ≥5 and <10%, worsening respiratory symptoms, or worsening fibrosis on computed tomography of the chest, all within 24 months of diagnosis. Time-to-event analysis compared progression between key diagnostic subgroups. Characteristics associated with progression were determined by multivariable regression.ResultsOf 2746 patients with fibrotic ILD (mean age 65±12 years, 51% female), 1376 (50%) met PF-ILD criteria in the first 24 months of follow-up. PF-ILD occurred in 427 (59%) patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), 125 (58%) with fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP), 281 (51%) with unclassifiable ILD (U-ILD), and 402 (45%) with connective tissue disease-associated ILD (CTD-ILD). Compared to IPF, time to progression was similar in patients with HP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.79–1.17), but was delayed in patients with U-ILD (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71–0.96) and CTD-ILD (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56–0.74). Background treatment varied across diagnostic subtypes with 66% of IPF patients receiving antifibrotic therapy, while immunomodulatory therapy was utilised in 49%, 61%, and 37% of patients with CHP, CTD-ILD, and U-ILD respectively. Increasing age, male sex, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and lower baseline pulmonary function were independently associated with progression.InterpretationProgression is common in patients with fibrotic ILD, and is similarly prevalent in HP and IPF. Routinely collected variables help identify patients at risk for progression and may guide therapeutic strategies.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. OBJECTIVES:To determine whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to sex and to report sex-related differences in renin-angiotensin system (RAS) components. DESIGN:Prospective observational cohort study comparing the effects of ARB or ACE inhibitors versus no ARBs or ACE inhibitors in males versus females.Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 downregulates ACE-2, potentially increasing angiotensin II (a pro-inflammatory vasoconstrictor). Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may explain sex-based differences in responses to ARBs because the ACE2 gene is on the X chromosome. We recorded baseline characteristics, comorbidities, prehospital ARBs or ACE inhibitor treatment, use of organ support and mortality, and measured RAS components at admission and days 2, 4, 7, and 14 in a subgroup (n = 46), recorded d-dimer (n = 967), comparing males with females. SETTING:ARBs CORONA I is a multicenter Canadian observational cohort of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19. This analysis includes patients admitted to 10 large urban hospitals across the four most populated provinces. PATIENTS:One-thousand six-hundred eighty-six patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 (February 2020 to March 2021) for acute COVID-19 illness were included. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Males on ARBs before admission had decreased use of ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.52; p = 0.007) and vasopressors (aOR = 0.55; p = 0.011) compared with males not on ARBs or ACE inhibitors. No significant effects were observed in females for these outcomes. The test for interaction was significant for use of ventilation (p = 0.006) and vasopressors (p = 0.044) indicating significantly different responses to ARBs according to sex. Males had significantly higher plasma ACE-1 at baseline and angiotensin II at day 7 and 14 than females. CONCLUSIONS:ARBs use was associated with less ventilation and vasopressors in males but not females. Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may contribute to sex-based differences in outcomes and responses to ARBs in COVID-19.

Background: Omicron is the current predominant variant of concern of SARS-CoV-2. We hypothesized that vaccination alters outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the Omicron wave and that these patients have different characteristics and outcomes than in previous waves. Methods: This is a substudy of the Host Response Mediators in Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection (ARBs CORONA I) trial, which included adults admitted to hospital with acute COVID-19 up to July 2022 from 9 hospitals in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. We excluded emergency department visits without hospital admission, readmissions and admissions for another reason. Using adjusted regression analysis, we compared mortality and organ dysfunction between vaccinated (≥ 2 doses) and unvaccinated patients during the Omicron wave, as well as between all patients in the Omicron and first 3 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: During the Omicron wave, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in vaccinated ( n = 19/237) than unvaccinated hospitalized patients ( n = 12/127) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15–0.89); vaccinated patients had lower risk of admission to the intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and acute respiratory distress syndrome and shorter hospital length of stay. Patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave had more comorbidities than in previous waves, and lower 28-day mortality than in waves 1 and 2 (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24–0.59; and 0.42, 95% CI 0.26–0.65) but not wave 3 (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43–1.51) and had less organ dysfunction than in the first 2 waves. Interpretation: Patients who were at least double vaccinated had lower mortality than unvaccinated patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave. Patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave had more chronic disease and lower mortality than in the first 2 waves, but not wave 3. Changes in vaccination, treatments and predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant may have decreased mortality in patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave.