Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39281278›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2024

Lung fibrosis in sarcoidosis. Is there a place for antifibrotics?

Karol Bączek, Wojciech Jerzy Piotrowski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

2 authors.

Karol BączekDepartment of Pneumology, Medical University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland.
Wojciech Jerzy PiotrowskiDepartment of Pneumology, Medical University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sarcoidosis, an enigmatic disease with unknown etiology, is characterized by inflammation and the potential involvement of various organs, predominantly the lungs and intrathoracic lymph nodes. Non-caseating granulomas can resolve spontaneously in approximately 60% of cases within 2-3 years. However, sarcoidosis-related mortality has increased. Lung fibrosis, affecting up to 20% of sarcoidosis patients, stands out as a primary cause of mortality. Traditionally, fibrosis is viewed because of prolonged inflammation, necessitating anti-inflammatory treatment with systemic steroids, immunosuppressants, and anti-TNF agents to manage the disease. The recent introduction of antifibrotic drugs such as nintedanib and pirfenidone offers new avenues for treating fibrotic sarcoidosis. Nintedanib, effective in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and systemic sclerosis-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD), has shown promise in patients with various progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (PF-ILD), including those with sarcoidosis. Pirfenidone, also effective in IPF, has demonstrated potential in managing fibrotic sarcoidosis, though results have been inconclusive due to limited participant numbers in studies. This review explores the theoretical and empirical evidence supporting the use of antifibrotics in sarcoidosis, weighing the benefits and drawbacks. While antifibrotics offer a potential therapeutic approach, further randomized controlled trials are essential to determine their efficacy in fibrotic sarcoidosis. Addressing fibrosis as a continuum of chronic inflammation, the role of antifibrotics in managing sarcoidosis remains an area requiring more in-depth research to improve patient outcomes and advance treatment paradigms.

Indexed as

antifibrotic agentfibrosisgranulomanintedanibpirfenidonesarcoidosis

Identifiers

PMID39281278
PMCPMC11392764

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.