Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33419890›Full record

Trial reportThe European respiratory journal2021

Home spirometry in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: data from the INMARK trial.

Imre Noth, Vincent Cottin, Nazia Chaudhuri, Tamera J Corte, Kerri A Johannson, Marlies Wijsenbeek, Stephane Jouneau, Andreas Michael, Manuel Quaresma, Klaus B Rohr and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European respiratory journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

Imre NothDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Vincent CottinNational Reference Centre for Rare Pulmonary Diseases, Louis Pradel Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5591-0955
Nazia ChaudhuriNorth West Interstitial Lung Disease Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Tamera J CorteRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia.
Kerri A JohannsonMedicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1205-5511
Marlies WijsenbeekDept of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Stephane JouneauHôpital Pontchaillou - CHU de Rennes, IRSET UMR 1085, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1949-3461
Andreas MichaelSyneos Health, Farnborough, UK.
Manuel QuaresmaBoehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Klaus B RohrBoehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Anne-Marie RussellCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0468-3537
Susanne StowasserBoehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Toby M Maher
INMARK trial investigators
Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) · DEErasmus MC · NLInstitut de Recherche en Santé, Environnement et Travail · FRManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe University of Sydney · AUUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Southern California · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

Department of Health CS-2013-13-017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData from the INMARK trial were used to investigate the feasibility and validity of home spirometry as a measure of lung function decline in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

methodsSubjects with IPF and preserved forced vital capacity (FVC) were randomised to receive nintedanib or placebo for 12 weeks followed by open-label nintedanib for 40 weeks. Clinic spirometry was conducted at baseline and weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36 and 52. Subjects were asked to perform home spirometry at least once a week and ideally daily. Correlations between home- and clinic-measured FVC and rates of change in FVC were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients.

resultsIn total, 346 subjects were treated. Mean adherence to weekly home spirometry decreased over time but remained above 75% in every 4-week period. Over 52 weeks, mean adherence was 86%. Variability in change from baseline in FVC was greater when measured by home rather than clinic spirometry. Strong correlations were observed between home- and clinic-measured FVC at all time-points (r=0.72-0.84), but correlations between home- and clinic-measured rates of change in FVC were weak (r=0.26 for rate of decline in FVC over 52 weeks).

conclusionHome spirometry was a feasible and valid measure of lung function in patients with IPF and preserved FVC, but estimates of the rate of FVC decline obtained using home spirometry were poorly correlated with those based on clinic spirometry.

Indexed as

Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisHumansSpirometryTreatment OutcomeVital Capacity

Identifiers

PMID33419890
PMCPMC8264778
OpenAlexW3118694714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.