BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive disease characterized by the aberrant accumulation of fibrotic tissue in the lungs parenchyma, associated with significant morbidity and poor prognosis. This review will present the substantial advances achieved in the understanding of IPF pathogenesis and in the therapeutic options that can be offered to patients, and will address the issues regarding diagnosis and management that are still open.Main bodyOver the last two decades much has been clarified about the pathogenic pathways underlying the development and progression of the lung scarring in IPF. Sustained alveolar epithelial micro-injury and activation has been recognised as the trigger of several biological events of disordered repair occurring in genetically susceptible ageing individuals. Despite multidisciplinary team discussion has demonstrated to increase diagnostic accuracy, patients can still remain unclassified when the current diagnostic criteria are strictly applied, requiring the identification of a Usual Interstitial Pattern either on high-resolution computed tomography scan or lung biopsy.Outstanding achievements have been made in the management of these patients, as nintedanib and pirfenidone consistently proved to reduce the rate of progression of the fibrotic process. However, many uncertainties still lie in the correct use of these drugs, ranging from the initial choice of the drug, the appropriate timing for treatment and the benefit-risk ratio of a combined treatment regimen. Several novel compounds are being developed in the perspective of a more targeted therapeutic approach; in the meantime, the supportive care of these patients and their carers should be appropriately prioritized, and greater efforts should be made toward the prompt identification and management of relevant comorbidities.ConclusionsBuilding on the advances in the understanding of IPF pathobiology, the further investigation of the role of gene variants, epigenetic alterations and other molecular biomarkers reflecting disease activity and behaviour will hopefully enable earlier and more confident diagnosis, improve disease phenotyping and support the development of novel agents for personalized treatment of IPF.

BackgroundChronic, progressive respiratory symptoms are associated with great psychological and emotional impact in patients suffering from interstitial lung disease (ILD). This single-centre pilot study evaluated for the first time the safety, feasibility and efficacy of a Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction Program (MBSR) in a group of patients with ILD.MethodsProspective observational study set in a university hospital ILD outpatient clinic. Nineteen patients with different ILDs were recruited 2 months prior to the start of the 8-week MBSR program and followed up for 12 months. Primary outcomes were program safety and feasibility, while secondary outcomes were changes in moods and stress (assessed by Profile Of Mood State (POMS) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) questionnaires), symptoms (Shortness Of Breath (SOB) and Cough And Sputum Assessment (CASA-Q) questionnaires), lung function and exercise tolerance at 12 months.ResultsTwo patients (10.5%) dropped out in the observational period before the start of the MBSR intervention because of non-respiratory causes. All 17 patients who entered the 8-week MBSR program managed to complete it with an adherence average of eight sessions of nine. No adverse events related to the mindfulness training were reported. Statistically significant improvements in the POMS total score and in several individual items of POMS and PSS were observed throughout the study. However, respiratory questionnaire scores, lung function and exercise tolerance did not show a significant difference over time.ConclusionsAn MBSR program appears to be safe and feasible in patients with ILD, and might affect perceived moods and stress producing a positive and lasting improvement in several stress-related negative domains. These findings pave the way to larger (possibly multicentre), randomised, controlled confirmatory trials.

No abstract

Background: It is well known that benign tracheal stenosis represents an obstacle to open surgery, and that its treatment could be challenging. Two endoscopic techniques have so far been adopted to restore tracheal patency: balloon dilatation (BA) through laryngoscopy, and tracheal stenting (ST) with rigid bronchoscopy. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of BA and ST to treat benign tracheal stenosis not eligible for surgery.We also compared the rate of adverse events in the two treatment groups.Methods: A retrospective, observational cohort study was carried out at the University Hospital of Modena (Italy) from November 2012 to November 2017 in two separate departments. Patients were considered to be "stabilized" (primary outcome) if they did not report significant respiratory symptoms, or restenosis in the long-term (2 years) following the endoscopic procedure.Results: Sixty-six patients were included in the study (33 in the BA and 33 in the ST group, respectively). Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a greater therapeutic effect of ST compared to BA at 2 years (hazard ratio = 3.9 95%CI [1.5-9.8], p = .01).After adjusting for confounders, stratified analyses showed that this effect was significant in patients with complex stenosis, idiopathic etiology, and degree of stenosis >70%. Compared with BA, ST showed a higher rate of adverse events (p = .01).Conclusions: Compared to BA, ST seems to be more effective in achieving stabilization of tracheal patency in complex benign tracheal stenosis, although burdened with a significantly higher number of adverse effects. These findings warrant future prospective study for confirmation.Level of evidence: 3.

No abstract