-
BMC Pulmonary Medicine May 2020While antifibrotic drugs significantly decrease lung function decline in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), there is still an unmet need to halt disease progression.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
While antifibrotic drugs significantly decrease lung function decline in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), there is still an unmet need to halt disease progression. Antioxidative therapy with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is considered a potential additional therapy that can be combined with antifibrotics in some patients in clinical practice. However, data on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of this combination are scarce. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the combination compared to treatment with pirfenidone alone.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed all the published studies with combined pirfenidone (PFD) and NAC (PFD + NAC) treatment in IPF patients. The primary outcomes referred to decline in pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and the rates of IPF patients with side effects.
RESULTS
In the meta-analysis, 6 studies with 319 total IPF patients were included. The PFD + NAC group was comparable to the PFD alone group in terms of the predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) and predicted diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLco%) from treatment start to week 24. Side effects and treatment discontinuation rates were also comparable in both groups.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that combination with NAC does not alter the efficacy, safety, or tolerability of PFD in comparison to PFD alone in IPF patients.
Topics: Humans; Acetylcysteine; Administration, Inhalation; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Carbon Monoxide; Drug Therapy, Combination; Free Radical Scavengers; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vital Capacity
PubMed: 32380989
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-020-1121-2 -
BMJ Open Dec 2021Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has been defined as a distinctive type of chronic fibrotic disease, characterised by a progressive decline in lung function and a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has been defined as a distinctive type of chronic fibrotic disease, characterised by a progressive decline in lung function and a common histological pattern of interstitial pneumonia. To analyse the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in the treatment of IPF, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.
DESIGN
This is a meta-analysis study.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients were diagnosed as IPF.
INTERVENTIONS
Use of pirfenidone.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME
Progression-free survival (PFS), acute exacerbation and worsening of IPF and Impact on adverse events.
MEASURES
The inverse variance method for the random-effects model was used to summarise the dichotomous outcomes, risk ratios and 95% CIs.
RESULTS
A total of 9 randomised controlled trials with 1011 participants receiving pirfenidone and 912 controls receiving placebo were summarised. The pooled result suggested a statistically significant difference inall-cause mortality after pirfenidone use, with a summarised relative ratio of 0.51 (p<0.01). Longer PFS was observed in patients receiving pirfenidone compared with those who were given placebo (p<0.01). The IPF groups presented a high incidence of adverse events with a pooled relative ratio of 3.89 (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Pirfenidone can provide survival benefit for patients with IPF. Pirfenidone treatment was also associated with a longer PFS, a lower incidence of acute exacerbation and worsening of IPF.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Progression-Free Survival; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vital Capacity
PubMed: 34972762
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050004 -
European Journal of Medical Research Oct 2021It is necessary to systematically evaluate the efficacy and adverse reactions of pirfenidone in the treatment of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is necessary to systematically evaluate the efficacy and adverse reactions of pirfenidone in the treatment of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).
METHODS
Pubmed et al. databases were searched up to March 15, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) of pirfenidone in the treatment of IPF. Two authors collected and compared the indicators including progression-free survival (PFS), vital capacity (VC), forced vital capacity (FVC), and adverse reactions. RevMan 5.3 software and Stata 15.0 software were used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 8 reports with 9 RCTs involving 1824 IPF patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the control group, pirfenidone could prolong the PFS phase of IPF patients (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 ~ 0.76, P < 0.001), slow down the VC of IPF patients (SMD = 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 ~ 0.66, P < 0.001), and decrease FVC (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 ~ 0.48, P < 0.001). The main adverse reactions of pirfenidone were gastrointestinal reactions, photosensitivity and skin rashes.
CONCLUSION
Pirfenidone is beneficial to prolong the PFS of IPF patients, improve lung function, and it is safe for clinical use. However, more high-quality RCTs are still needed to provide reliable evidence for the treatment of IPF.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diarrhea; Exanthema; Humans; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Lung; Nausea; Progression-Free Survival; Pyridones; Treatment Outcome; Vital Capacity
PubMed: 34717762
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-021-00601-y -
Cureus Mar 2024As the global incidence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is on the rise, there is a need for better diagnostic criteria, better treatment options, early and... (Review)
Review
As the global incidence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is on the rise, there is a need for better diagnostic criteria, better treatment options, early and appropriate diagnosis, adequate care, and a multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients. This systematic review explores the role of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in IPF and answers the question, "Does proton pump inhibitor improve only the prognosis of gastroesophageal associated idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or for other types of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis too?" We used PubMed (PMC) and Google Scholar for data collection for this systematic review and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for conducting this review. After in-depth literature screening and quality appraisal, 12 articles were selected for this systematic review. On the one hand, the efficacy of PPI therapy is supported by research such as the CAPACITY and ASCEND trials, a pilot randomized control trial (RCT) investigating the role of omeprazole in IPF and a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study, respectively. On the other hand, a systematic review and meta-analysis on antacid and antireflux surgery in IPF negate these results and show no statistical significance. Questions regarding the efficacy of PPI therapy must be dealt with in an adequately powered multicenter and double-blinded randomized control trial. The anti-inflammatory properties of antacids can serve as the cornerstone for future trials. In the following systematic review, antacid, antireflux therapy, omeprazole, and proton pump therapy are synonymous with stomach acid suppression therapy.
PubMed: 38606271
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.55980 -
Arthritis Research & Therapy Jun 2021New molecular mechanisms that can be targeted with specific drugs have recently emerged for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. Over the past 3 years,... (Review)
Review
New molecular mechanisms that can be targeted with specific drugs have recently emerged for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. Over the past 3 years, the achievement of one large phase 3 trial has led to the approval by drug agencies of the first drug licenced for SSc-related interstitial lung disease. Given this exciting time in the SSc field, we aimed to perform a systemic literature review of phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials and large observational studies about targeted therapies in SSc. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies from 2016 with targeted therapies as the primary treatment in patients with SSc for skin or lung involvement as the primary clinical outcome measure. Details on the study characteristics, the trial drug used, the molecular target engaged by the trial drug, the inclusion criteria of the study, the treatment dose, the possibility of concomitant immunosuppression, the endpoints of the study, the duration of the study and the results obtained were reviewed. Of the 973 references identified, 21 (4 conference abstracts and 17 articles) were included in the systematic review. A total of 15 phase 1/phase 2 clinical trials, 2 phase 3 clinical trials and 2 observation studies were analysed. The drugs studied in phase 1/phase 2 studies included the following: inebilizumab, dabigatran, C-82, pomalidomide, rilonacept, romilkimab, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, pirfenidone, lenabasum, abatacept, belimumab, riociguat, SAR100842 and lanifibranor. All but 3 studies were performed in early diffuse SSc patients with different inclusion criteria, while 3 studies were performed in SSc patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). Phase 3 clinical trials investigated nintedanib and tocilizumab. Nintedanib was investigated in SSc-ILD patients whereas tocilizumab focused on early diffuse SSc patients with inflammatory features. Two observational studies including > 50 patients with rituximab as the targeted drug were also evaluated. All these studies offer a real hope for SSc patients. The future challenges will be to customize patient-specific therapeutics with the goal to develop precision medicine for SSc.
Topics: Humans; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Scleroderma, Diffuse; Scleroderma, Systemic
PubMed: 34074331
DOI: 10.1186/s13075-021-02536-5 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jan 2023Antifibrotic treatment has been approved for reducing disease progression in fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). As a result of increased bleeding risk, some...
Impact of Antifibrotic Treatment on Postoperative Complications in Patients with Interstitial Lung Diseases Undergoing Lung Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Antifibrotic treatment has been approved for reducing disease progression in fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). As a result of increased bleeding risk, some experts suggest cessation of antifibrotics prior to lung transplantation (LT). However, extensive knowledge regarding the impact of antifibrotic treatment on postoperative complications remains unclear. We performed a comprehensive search of several databases from their inception through to 30 September 2021. Original studies were included in the final analysis if they compared postoperative complications, including surgical wound dehiscence, anastomosis complication, bleeding complications, and primary graft dysfunction, between those with and without antifibrotic treatment undergoing LT. Of 563 retrieved studies, 6 studies were included in the final analysis. A total of 543 ILD patients completing LT were included, with 161 patients continuing antifibrotic treatment up to the time of LT and 382 without prior treatment. Antifibrotic treatment was not significantly associated with surgical wound dehiscence (RR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.31-3.60; = 0%), anastomotic complications (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.37-2.12; = 31%), bleeding complications (RR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.33-1.76; = 0%), or primary graft dysfunction (RR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59-1.29; = 0%). Finally, continuing antifibrotic treatment prior to LT was not significantly associated with decreased 1-year mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.41-1.58; = 0%). Our study suggests a similar risk of postoperative complications in ILD patients undergoing LT who received antifibrotic treatment compared to those not on antifibrotic therapy.
PubMed: 36675583
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12020655