Cargando…
Where do we stand with IPF treatment?
Despite receiving ‘weak no’ recommendations in the updated guidelines on treating patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), two key treatment options are pirfenidone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), and both are used in clinical practice. The efficacy of pirfenidone is supported by a number of P...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3643087/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23734956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-14-S1-S7 |
_version_ | 1782268262564757504 |
---|---|
author | Albera, C Ferrero, C Rindone, E Zanotto, S Rizza, E |
author_facet | Albera, C Ferrero, C Rindone, E Zanotto, S Rizza, E |
author_sort | Albera, C |
collection | PubMed |
description | Despite receiving ‘weak no’ recommendations in the updated guidelines on treating patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), two key treatment options are pirfenidone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), and both are used in clinical practice. The efficacy of pirfenidone is supported by a number of Phase III trials as well as a Cochrane meta-analysis. Tolerability data are also provided by clinical trials and a long-term extension phase of these studies. Pirfenidone is approved in Europe for the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate IPF. NAC-based therapy has no such approval, but is commonly used to treat patients. A Phase III trial suggested some benefit of the NAC, prednisone and azathioprine regimen for IPF patients, but the study had many limitations. A further study to investigate this regimen, compared with a placebo alone arm, was recently stopped due to increased mortality in the triple-therapy arm. Discussion of these data and recent findings highlight the importance of a further update to the existing guidelines, so that IPF specialists can provide the most up-to-date advice and treatment to patients in clinical practice. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3643087 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-36430872013-05-09 Where do we stand with IPF treatment? Albera, C Ferrero, C Rindone, E Zanotto, S Rizza, E Respir Res Review Despite receiving ‘weak no’ recommendations in the updated guidelines on treating patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), two key treatment options are pirfenidone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), and both are used in clinical practice. The efficacy of pirfenidone is supported by a number of Phase III trials as well as a Cochrane meta-analysis. Tolerability data are also provided by clinical trials and a long-term extension phase of these studies. Pirfenidone is approved in Europe for the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate IPF. NAC-based therapy has no such approval, but is commonly used to treat patients. A Phase III trial suggested some benefit of the NAC, prednisone and azathioprine regimen for IPF patients, but the study had many limitations. A further study to investigate this regimen, compared with a placebo alone arm, was recently stopped due to increased mortality in the triple-therapy arm. Discussion of these data and recent findings highlight the importance of a further update to the existing guidelines, so that IPF specialists can provide the most up-to-date advice and treatment to patients in clinical practice. BioMed Central 2013 2013-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3643087/ /pubmed/23734956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-14-S1-S7 Text en Copyright © 2013 Albera et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Albera, C Ferrero, C Rindone, E Zanotto, S Rizza, E Where do we stand with IPF treatment? |
title | Where do we stand with IPF treatment? |
title_full | Where do we stand with IPF treatment? |
title_fullStr | Where do we stand with IPF treatment? |
title_full_unstemmed | Where do we stand with IPF treatment? |
title_short | Where do we stand with IPF treatment? |
title_sort | where do we stand with ipf treatment? |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3643087/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23734956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-14-S1-S7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alberac wheredowestandwithipftreatment AT ferreroc wheredowestandwithipftreatment AT rindonee wheredowestandwithipftreatment AT zanottos wheredowestandwithipftreatment AT rizzae wheredowestandwithipftreatment |