BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a respiratory disorder with a poor prognosis. Our objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of 22 approved or studied IPF drug treatments.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 2 April 2021. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for adult patients with IPF receiving one or more of 22 drug treatments. Pairs of reviewers independently identified randomised trials that compared one or more of the target medical treatments in patients with IPF. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) ratios and presented direct or network estimates with 95% credibility intervals (95% CI), within the GRADE framework.ResultsWe identified 48 (10 326 patients) eligible studies for analysis. Nintedanib [RR 0.69 (0.44 to 1.1), pirfenidone [RR 0.63 (0.37 to 1.09); direct estimate), and sildenafil [RR (0.44 (0.16 to 1.09)] probably reduce mortality (all moderate certainty). Nintedanib (2.92% (1.51 to 4.14)), nintedanib+sildenafil (157 mL (–88.35 to 411.12)), pirfenidone (2.47% (–0.1 to 5)), pamrevlumab (4.3% (0.5 to 8.1)) and pentraxin (2.74% (1 to 4.83)) probably reduce decline of overall forced vital capacity (all moderate certainty). Only sildenafil probably reduces acute exacerbation and hospitalisations (moderate certainty). Corticosteroids+azathioprine+N-acetylcysteine increased risk of serious adverse events versus placebo (high certainty).Conclusion and relevanceFuture guidelines should consider sildenafil for IPF and further research needs to be done on promising IPF treatments such as pamrevlumab and pentraxin as phase 3 trials are completed.

Background: The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 and its association with mortality and disease severity is understudied in the Canadian population. Objective: To determine the incidence of AKI in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to medicine and intensive care unit (ICU) wards, its association with in-hospital mortality, and disease severity. Our aim was to stratify these outcomes by out-of-hospital AKI and in-hospital AKI. Design: Retrospective cohort study from a registry of patients with COVID-19. Setting: Three community and 3 academic hospitals. Patients: A total of 815 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between March 4, 2020, and April 23, 2021. Measurements: Stage of AKI, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. Methods: We classified AKI by comparing highest to lowest recorded serum creatinine in hospital and staged AKI based on the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) system. We calculated the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio for the stage of AKI and the outcomes of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. Results: Of the 815 patients registered, 439 (53.9%) developed AKI, 253 (57.6%) presented with AKI, and 186 (42.4%) developed AKI in-hospital. The odds of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death increased as the AKI stage worsened. Stage 3 AKI that occurred during hospitalization increased the odds of death (odds ratio [OR] = 7.87 [4.35, 14.23]). Stage 3 AKI that occurred prior to hospitalization carried an increased odds of death (OR = 5.28 [2.60, 10.73]). Limitations: Observational study with small sample size limits precision of estimates. Lack of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients without COVID-19 as controls limits causal inferences. Conclusions: Acute kidney injury, whether it occurs prior to or after hospitalization, is associated with a high risk of poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Routine assessment of kidney function in patients with COVID-19 may improve risk stratification. Trial registration: The study was not registered on a publicly accessible registry because it did not involve any health care intervention on human participants.

No abstract

Background:There is no consensus on the most effective treatments of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Our objective was to compare effects of medications for PAH.Methods:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to December 2021. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis on all included trials. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Results:We included 53 randomised controlled trials with 10 670 patients. Combination therapy with endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) plus phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i) reduced clinical worsening (120.7 fewer events per 1000, 95% CI 136.8–93.4 fewer; high certainty) and was superior to either ERA or PDE5i alone, both of which reduced clinical worsening, as did riociguat monotherapy (all high certainty). PDE5i (24.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 35.2 fewer to 2.1 more); intravenous/subcutaneous prostanoids (18.3 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 28.6 fewer deaths to 0) and riociguat (29.1 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 38.6 fewer to 8.7 more) probably reduce mortality as compared to placebo (all moderate certainty). Combination therapy with ERA+PDE5i (49.9 m, 95% CI 25.9–73.8 m) and riociguat (49.5 m, 95% CI 17.3–81.7 m) probably increase 6-min walk distance as compared to placebo (moderate certainty).Conclusion:Current PAH treatments improve clinically important outcomes, although the degree and certainty of benefit vary between treatments.

Background: Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a poor overall prognosis and there are few evidence based drug therapies that reduce mortality. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess whether sildenafil reduces mortality, reduces disease progression and the adverse side effects associated with it. Methods: In this review, randomized controlled studies (RCTs) were retrieved from MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes included change in FVC, acute exacerbations and hospitalizations and adverse drug effects leading to discontinuation. We used an inverse variance random effects meta-analysis method to calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: A total of 4 studies were included. Sildenafil probably reduces mortality when compared to placebo or to standard care, [OR 0.63 (0.38,1.03), I2=0%]. Pooled results showed sildenafil does not alter the rate of change of FVC [SMD 0.02 (-0.14,0.18)], or DLCO [SMR -0.01 (-0.18,0.17)], I2=0]. Pooled results showed sildenafil may not reduce the number of hospitalizations or acute exacerbations, [OR 1.06 (0.67,1.67)], I2= 0]. There was no significant difference in drug discontinuation due to adverse effects when comparing sildenafil to the control group, [OR 0.79 (0.56, 1.11)], I2=0]. Conclusion: Sildenafil probably reduces all-cause mortality in IPF patients. More studies need to be done in order to confirm the magnitude and reliability of the point estimate.