Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024
Antifibrotic treatment response comparison of progressive pulmonary fibrosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Özyürek Berna Akıncı, Ensarioğlu Kerem, Özdemirel Tuğçe Şahin, Akkurt Esma Sevil, Özdağ Özlem, Zenbilli Esma
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) are two entities categorized as fibrotic lung diseases. With a similar clinical presentation and treatment modalities in many cases, the line differentiating these two diseases may not be evident. Hence, it was aimed herein to evaluate the effectiveness of antifibrotic treatment and the course of fibrotic lung diseases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included patients diagnosed with IPF and PPF who were given antifibrotic treatment and followed-up for 12 months at our clinic. At the final follow-up, treatment response and radiological evaluation were investigated via high-resolution computed tomography.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included in the study (57 with IPF and 30 with PPF). Under antifibrotic treatment, there were no statistically significant decreases in the six-minute walking test, forced vital capacity, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide values at 6 and 12 months posttreatment. The most common side effects were photosensitivity for patients under the pirfenidone regimen, while diarrhea was predominantly observed in the PPF group. Radiological progression was observed in 22.9% of the patients at 12 months posttreatment. Hospitalization requirements were more evident in the PPF group, with at least one hospitalization history present in 60% (n = 18) of the PPF patients compared to 12.3% (n = 7) of the IPF patients.
CONCLUSION: A personalized approach is preferred with similar clinical profiles for both treatment modalities, with specific side effects considered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included patients diagnosed with IPF and PPF who were given antifibrotic treatment and followed-up for 12 months at our clinic. At the final follow-up, treatment response and radiological evaluation were investigated via high-resolution computed tomography.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included in the study (57 with IPF and 30 with PPF). Under antifibrotic treatment, there were no statistically significant decreases in the six-minute walking test, forced vital capacity, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide values at 6 and 12 months posttreatment. The most common side effects were photosensitivity for patients under the pirfenidone regimen, while diarrhea was predominantly observed in the PPF group. Radiological progression was observed in 22.9% of the patients at 12 months posttreatment. Hospitalization requirements were more evident in the PPF group, with at least one hospitalization history present in 60% (n = 18) of the PPF patients compared to 12.3% (n = 7) of the IPF patients.
CONCLUSION: A personalized approach is preferred with similar clinical profiles for both treatment modalities, with specific side effects considered.