Background Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) frequently have multiple comorbidities, which may influence survival but go under-recognised in clinical practice. We therefore report comorbidity, antifibrotic treatment use and survival of patients with IPF observed in the multi-national EMPIRE registry. Methods For this prospective IPF cohort, demographics, comorbidities, survival and causes of death were analysed. Comorbidities were noted by the treating physician based on the patient’s past medical history or as reported during follow-up. Comorbidities were defined as prevalent when noted at enrolment, or as incident when recorded during follow-up. Survival was analysed by Kaplan–Meier estimates, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. Hazard ratios (HR) were adjusted for gender, age, smoking status and FVC at enrolment. Results A population of 3,580 patients with IPF from 11 Central and Eastern European countries was followed every 6 months for up to 6 years. At enrolment, 91.3% of patients reported at least one comorbidity, whereas more than one-third (37.8%) reported four or more comorbidities. Five-year survival was 53.7% in patients with no prevalent comorbidities, whereas it was 48.4%, 47.0%, 43.8% and 41.1% in patients with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 comorbidities, respectively. The presence of multiple comorbidities at enrolment was associated with significantly worse survival (log-rank test P = 0.007). Adjusted HRs indicate that risk of death was increased by 44% in patients with IPF reporting ≥ 4 comorbidities at baseline compared with no comorbidity (P = 0.021). The relationship between number of comorbidities and decreased survival was also seen in patients receiving antifibrotic treatment (63% of all patients; log-rank test P < 0.001). Comorbidity as cause of death was identified in at least 26.1% of deaths. Conclusions The majority of patients with IPF demonstrate comorbidities, and many have comorbidity-related deaths. Increasing numbers of comorbidities are associated with worse survival; and this pattern is also present in patients receiving antifibrotic therapy.
Aims Biologics have been proven efficacious for patients with severe asthma (SA). It is essential to diagnose such individuals correctly. This study was designed to survey pulmonologists to identify barriers to early diagnosis and subsequent appropriate use of biologics for SA in Croatia. Methods A pulmonologist group with expertise in SA developed the initial list of questions, with the final questionnaire created according to a 2-round Delphi method. The resulting survey consisted of 23 items consequently divided into 4 domains: 1) Pulmonologists’ demographics and professional experiences; 2) Concerns about asthma management; 3) Attitudes toward SA diagnosis; and 4) Beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of biologics in managing SA. The given answers represented the respondents’ estimates. Results Eighty-four surveys were analyzed, with pulmonologists observing that general practitioners often inaccurately diagnose asthma and treat acute exacerbations. Although specialist centers are capably and correctly equipped, the time to diagnose patients with SA is approximately 3.5 months, with initial use of biologics delayed an additional 2 months. The primary indications for prescribing biologics are conventional therapy with oral glucocorticoids (91.7%) and frequent acute exacerbations (82.1%). In addition to improper diagnosis (64.3%), many patients with SA do not receive the indicated biologics owing to strict administrative directives for reimbursement (70.2%) or limited hospital resources (57.1%). Limitations The limitations of this survey include the subjective nature of the collected data, the relatively small sample size, and the lack of the biologic efficacy evaluation. Conclusions Croatian pulmonologists observed that a significant number of patients with SA who are eligible for biologics are not prescribed them, largely because of an inaccurate and/or delayed diagnosis, a delayed referral to a specialist center, highly restrictive criteria for reimbursement, and/or institutional budgetary limitations.
Introduction The impact of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the setting of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV‑2) infection is not clearly defined. Blood eosinophil count is a standard diagnostic test which, according to the previously published literature, might have a potential prognostic role on mortality in patients with SARS-CoV‑2 infection. Aim To investigate the potential prognostic value of peripheral blood eosinophil count on all-cause mortality of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV‑2 infection, as well as to assess the impact of asthma or COPD premorbidity on all-cause mortality. Material and methods We conducted a retrospective registry-based cohort study. Survival analysis was performed by employing the Cox proportional hazards regression model at 30 days of follow-up. Prognostic value of eosinophil count on all-cause mortality was assessed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results A total of 5653 participants were included in the study. Our model did not reveal that pre-existing asthma or COPD is a statistically significant covariate for all-cause mortality but, indicated that higher eosinophil count at admission might have a protective effect (hazard ratio, HR 0.13 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.06–0.27), p = 0.0001). ROC curve analysis indicates cut-off value of 20 cells/mm 3 (81% specificity; 30.9% sensitivity). Conclusion Our results indicate that eosinophil count at hospital admission might have a potential prognostic role for all-cause mortality at 30 days of follow-up; however this was not demonstrated for pre-existing obstructive lung diseases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.