ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2016
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Physicians' perceptions of patient treatment with recently approved drugs.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare, chronic and ultimately fatal disease for which only palliative treatments existed until recently. Between 2011 and 2015, two new drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, were approved in the US and Europe for the treatment of IPF, providing hope for patients. The objectives of our work were to understand physicians' expected use of these new treatments in the US and Europe, and to estimate their potential. To achieve this goal, we conducted surveys amongst US and European Union (EU) pulmonologists caring for patients with IPF. There was a significant difference between EU and US physicians in the treatment of patients with mild disease with pirfenidone; the EU physicians anticipated using pirfenidone for 57% of their patients with mild disease, whereas the US pulmonologists anticipated using it for 34% of their patients (p = 0.01). Regarding patients with severe disease, the US pulmonologists anticipated treating 74% with either pirfenidone (46%) or nintedanib (28%), whereas the EU pulmonologists treated 28% with pirfenidone and anticipated treating 20% with nintedanib. These findings suggest treatment with pirfenidone and nintedanib based on disease severity may vary between US and EU physicians, which may affect patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.