Late Breaking Abstract - Real-life characteristics and management of patients with fibrosing interstitial lung disease: INSIGHTS-ILD registry
Résumé fourni par la source
This study aims to obtain real-life data on the characteristics and treatment trajectories of patients with fibrosing interstitial lung disease (fILD). INSIGHTS-ILD is an ongoing prospective registry for fILDs conducted at 32 expert sites across Germany. fILD patients are eligible if single breath diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) ≤80% pred., interstitial lung fibrosis >10% on HRCT, and are on any active anti-inflammatory and/or antifibrotic therapy. Criteria of progression were not mandatory for inclusion. Patients with IPF are excluded. Study registration: DRKS00027389, EMA RWD Catalogue 1000000161. Characteristics of the 655 patients in the interim analysis are shown in Figure 1. erj;64/suppl_68/PA3416/F1 F1 F1 Current treatment included oral steroids (62.6%), antifibrotic therapy (50.5%), azathioprine (14.4%), MTX (10.2%) and MMF (11.1%). Mean quality of life on the 0-100 visual analogue scale was 58±19 points. Patients on antifibrotic therapy, compared to those not on such therapy were older, more often male, had a lower FVC and DLCO, and a higher prevalence of INBUILD criteria for progression (72.7% vs. 40.1%). The patient characteristics in this registry closely resemble those observed in randomized controlled trials and non-interventional studies of fILD, with individuals on antifibrotic therapy displaying a more severe disease profile.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Late Breaking Abstract - Real-life characteristics and management of patients with fibrosing interstitial lung disease: INSIGHTS-ILD registry
- Date Crossref
- 14/09/2024
- Éditeur
- European Respiratory Society
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.