Observational studyPloS one2023
The clinical impact of comorbidities among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis undergoing anti-fibrotic treatment: A multicenter retrospective observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comorbidity in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Evaluation Using the Charlson, TORVAN and GAP Indices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- What role does artificial intelligence-driven quantitative analysis of chest computed tomography play in providing pulmonary function for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients undergoing pirfenidone treatment?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- The Impact of Comorbidities on the Discontinuation of Antifibrotic Therapy in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Exploring the Role of Hemogram-Derived Ratios and Liver Fibrosis Scores in Pulmonary Fibrosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmong patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), few studies have investigated the clinical impact of anti-fibrotic treatment (AFT) with and without comorbidities. The aim of the study was to determine whether Charlson Comorbidity Index score (CCIS) can predict the efficacy of AFT in patients with IPF.
methodsWe retrospectively assessed data extracted from the medical records of IPF patients who received anti-fibrotic agents between 2009 and 2019. The collected data included age, sex, CCIS, pulmonary function test, high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) pattern, gender/age/physiology (GAP) score, and 3-year IPF-related events defined as the first acute exacerbation or death within 3 years after starting AFT.
resultsWe assessed 130 patients (median age, 74 years) who received nintedanib (n = 70) or pirfenidone (n = 60). Median duration of AFT was 425 days. Patients were categorized into high (≥ 3 points) and low (≤ 2 points) CCIS groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, duration of AFT, GAP score, or incidence of usual interstitial pneumonia pattern on HRCT except percentage predicted diffusion capacity of lung for carbon monoxide. Also, significant difference was not seen between the groups for 3-year IPF-related events (P = 0.75). Especially, in the low CCIS group but not the high CCIS group, the longer duration of AFT had better disease outcome.
conclusionIn the present study, we could not show any relation between CCIS and IPF disease outcomes in patients undergoing AFT, though the longer duration of AFT might be beneficial for IPF outcomes among patients with low CCIS.
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.