The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

No abstract

Background The INBUILD trial investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib versus placebo in patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We aimed to establish the effects of nintedanib in subgroups based on ILD diagnosis. Methods The INBUILD trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial done at 153 sites in 15 countries. Participants had an investigator-diagnosed fibrosing ILD other than IPF, with chest imaging features of fibrosis of more than 10% extent on high resolution CT (HRCT), forced vital capacity (FVC) of 45% or more predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLco) of at least 30% and less than 80% predicted. Participants fulfilled protocol-defined criteria for ILD progression in the 24 months before screening, despite management considered appropriate in clinical practice for the individual ILD. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 by means of a pseudorandom number generator to receive nintedanib 150 mg twice daily or placebo for at least 52 weeks. Participants, investigators, and other personnel involved in the trial and analysis were masked to treatment assignment until after database lock. In this subgroup analysis, we assessed the rate of decline in FVC (mL/year) over 52 weeks in patients who received at least one dose of nintedanib or placebo in five prespecified subgroups based on the ILD diagnoses documented by the investigators: hypersensitivity pneumonitis, autoimmune ILDs, idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia, unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, and other ILDs. The trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02999178.

BACKGROUNDInfected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODSWe conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTSA total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONSThis trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.