ArticleLung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society2026
Antifibrotic Treatment in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) and Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis (PPF): Real-World outcomes from a Single-Center study.
Article in Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAntifibrotic therapies are widely used in both idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF). We aim to compare the demographic, clinical characteristics, and long-term outcomes of IPF and PPF patients on antifibrotic treatment at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a retrospective single-center cohort study. Between January 2021 and January 2025, patients who initiated antifibrotic therapy were retrospectively included. Pulmonary function tests were recorded before treatment, at baseline, and at 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits. Additionally, baseline 6-minute walk test results and radiological data were also documented.
resultsA total of 117 cases were included in the study, consisting of 76 IPF and 41 PPF. IPF patients were statistically significantly older than PPF patients (P < 0.001). The proportion of females was higher in the PPF group (P < 0.001). 52% of the cases used pirfenidone, while 48% used nintedanib. The most common subtype of PPF was connective tissue disease-associated ILD (48.8%), followed by nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (34.1%), and hypersensitivity pneumonitis (17.1%). In the PPF group, basal, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up FVC and DLCO values were statistically significantly lower compared to the IPF group. However, in both the IPF and PPF groups, no significant loss was observed in FVC and DLCO when comparing the 6-month and 1-year follow-up data with baseline values. No significant difference in mortality was found between the IPF and PPF groups.
conclusionsAntifibrotic treatments showed a similar effect profile for both IPF and PPF. Our findings suggest that PPF patients with lower baseline pulmonary function require closer monitoring for early detection of progression.
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.