European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline on symptom management for adults with serious respiratory illness.

Respiratory symptoms are ubiquitous and impair health-related quality of life in people with respiratory disease. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force aimed to provide recommendations for symptomatic treatment in people with serious respiratory illness. The ERS task force comprised 16 members, including representatives of people with serious respiratory illness and informal caregivers. Seven questions were formulated, six in the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format, which were addressed with full systematic reviews and evidence assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). One question was addressed narratively. An "evidence-to-decision" framework was used to formulate recommendations. To treat symptoms in people with serious respiratory illness, the task force suggests the use of graded exercise therapy (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence); and suggests the use of a multicomponent services, handheld fan and breathing techniques (conditional recommendations, very low certainty of evidence). The task force suggests not to use opioids (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence); and suggests either administering or not administering supplemental oxygen therapy (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). The task force suggests that needs assessment tools may be used as part of a comprehensive needs assessment, but do not replace patient-centred care and shared decision making (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). The low certainty of evidence, modest impact of interventions on patient-centred outcomes, and absence of effective strategies to ameliorate cough highlight the need for new approaches to reduce symptoms and enhance wellbeing for individuals who live with serious respiratory illness.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. CONCLUSION: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. IMPACT: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. REPORTING METHOD: CONSORT and CONSERVE. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

Treatable traits: a comprehensive precision medicine approach in interstitial lung disease.

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a diverse group of inflammatory and fibrotic lung conditions causing significant morbidity and mortality. A multitude of factors beyond the lungs influence symptoms, health-related quality of life, disease progression and survival in patients with ILD. Despite an increasing emphasis on multidisciplinary management in ILD, the absence of a framework for assessment and delivery of comprehensive patient care poses challenges in clinical practice. The treatable traits approach is a precision medicine care model that operates on the premise of individualised multidimensional assessment for distinct traits that can be targeted by specific interventions. The potential utility of this approach has been described in airway diseases, but has not been adequately considered in ILD. Given the similar disease heterogeneity and complexity between ILD and airway diseases, we explore the concept and potential application of the treatable traits approach in ILD. A framework of aetiological, pulmonary, extrapulmonary and behavioural and lifestyle treatable traits relevant to clinical care and outcomes for patients with ILD is proposed. We further describe key research directions to evaluate the application of the treatable traits approach towards advancing patient care and health outcomes in ILD.

Sarcoidosis and frailty: recognizing factors that foster holistic resilience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sarcoidosis is a multiorgan system disease exerting significant impact on biophysical, social, psychological and emotional well-being. Mortality and disability correlate to accessible, timely, expert care for sarcoidosis and its related complications. Across health conditions, positive healthcare interactions and interventions can rehabilitate unfavourable factors tied to concepts of ' frailty' . Here, we set out to introduce concepts related to frailty and their impact in the context of sarcoidosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies examining frailty across other multiorgan and single organ-based diseases that mirror organ involvement in sarcoidosis demonstrate findings that bear relevance in sarcoidosis. Namely, factors predisposing a person to frailty are a multifactorial phenomenon which are also reflected in the lived experience of sarcoidosis; and that early diagnosis, intervention and prevention may alter a course towards more favourable health outcomes. SUMMARY: Factors predisposing to frailty in other health conditions may also signal a risk in sarcoidosis. In turn, proactive health preservation - regardless of age - may lead to improved biopsychosocial reserve and health-related quality of life. Fortifying holistic resilience in sarcoidosis is anticipated to reduce risk of the occurrence and prolongation of health-related complications, and facilitate swifter recovery from biophysical complications as well as from psychosocial and emotional stressors.

Patient research priority setting partnership in human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I.

INTRODUCTION: Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) is a chronic infection affecting 5-10 million people worldwide. Ten percent develop HTLV-1-associated diseases, and 3%-5% develop HTLV-1-associated myelopathy (HAM)/tropical spastic paraparesis. Low health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a significant concern for those with HTLV-1, and little is known about how it impacts daily life or what patients need from healthcare services. To address this, we report on patient involvement workshops aimed at identifying research priorities for HTLV-1 health service provision. METHODS: Participants recruited through HTLV-1 clinics in England attended six 90-min virtual workshops over 10 months, and two 60-min consolidation workshops. Content developed iteratively from topic focussed group discussions. All workshops were video-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Using consensus voting rounds, participants individually ranked their top six and then collectively their top three research priorities from the themes inferred from the analysis. A final feedback session explored the experiences of participating in the workshops. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven people with HTLV-1 engaged with the workshops with up to 22 participants attending each meeting. The majority were diagnosed with HAM (n = 22). The top three research priorities were identified as understanding disease progression, psychosocial wellbeing, and information and knowledge. Participants valued being asked to set research priorities that directly addressed their needs and enjoyed the workshops. They stressed the importance of patient advocates for promoting research that positively impacts everyday life. CONCLUSION: This is the first of this type of research engagement with people with HTLV-1 in the United Kingdom. Participants identified several avenues of investigation that could lead to improvements in healthcare services and HRQoL. Participants believed the workshops signified the start of a conversation to progress person-centred and meaningful research in HTLV-1. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People living with HTLV-1 were involved in the iterative design, conduct, analysis, writing and dissemination of this project through the patient involvement workshops. As a result of this engagement, a patient led advisory group has been set up to assist with the dissemination of the findings.

Nurses' strategies for overcoming barriers to fundamental nursing care in patients with COVID-19 caused by infection with the SARS-COV-2 virus: Results from the 'COVID-NURSE' survey.

AIMS: To identify strategies used by registered nurses and non-registered nursing care staff in overcoming barriers when providing fundamental nursing care for non-invasively ventilated inpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey with open-ended questions to collect qualitative data. METHODS: In August 2020, we asked UK-based nursing staff to describe any strategies they employed to overcome barriers to delivering care in 15 fundamental nursing care categories when providing care to non-invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We analysed data using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1062 nurses consented to participate in our survey. We derived four themes. 1) Communication behaviours included adapting verbal and non-verbal communication with patients, using information technology to enable patients' significant others to communicate with staff and patients, and establishing clear information-sharing methods with other staff. 2) Organizing care required clustering interventions, carefully managing supplies, encouraging patient self-care and using 'runners' and interdisciplinary input. 3) Addressing patients' well-being and values required spending time with patients, acting in loco familiae, providing access to psychological and spiritual support, obtaining information about patients' wishes early on and providing privacy and comforting/meaningful items. 4) Management and leadership behaviours included training, timely provision of pandemic information, psychological support, team huddles and facilitating regular breaks. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified multiple strategies in four main areas of clinical practice. Management and leadership are crucial to both fundamental care delivery and the well-being of nurses during pandemics. Grouping strategies into these areas of action may assist nurses and leaders to prepare for pandemic nursing. IMPACT: As these strategies are unlikely to be exclusive to the COVID-19 pandemic, their global dissemination may improve patient experience and help nurses deliver fundamental care when planning pandemic nursing. However, their effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we are currently evaluating these strategies in a cluster randomized controlled trial.

European Respiratory Society statement on long COVID follow-up.

Patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection frequently experience symptom burden post-acute infection or post-hospitalisation. We aimed to identify optimal strategies for follow-up care that may positively impact the patient's quality of life (QoL). A European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force convened and prioritised eight clinical questions. A targeted search of the literature defined the timeline of "long COVID" as 1-6 months post-infection and identified clinical evidence in the follow-up of patients. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria report an association of characteristics of acute infection with persistent symptoms, thromboembolic events in the follow-up period, and evaluations of pulmonary physiology and imaging. Importantly, this statement reviews QoL consequences, symptom burden, disability and home care follow-up. Overall, the evidence for follow-up care for patients with long COVID is limited.

Ageing with Interstitial lung disease: preserving health and well being.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ageing, the accrual of molecular and cellular damage over a lifetime confers progressive physiologic dysfunction of bodily systems, leaving the body in a heightened state of vulnerability to biophysical and psychosocial stressors. The inflection point is frailty which easily leads to disability and death. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) creates biophysical and psychosocial stresses difficult for even optimally fit patients to cope with. With evolving ILD treatment pathways, people with ILD are living longer. RECENT FINDINGS: ILD and ageing are bi-directionally influential: ILD, its treatments, complications, and collateral systemic extra-pulmonary damage (hypoxic and oxidative stress) wear on the ageing person and ageing impacts a person's tolerance of ILD. ILD extent may proportionally accelerate age-related vulnerabilities. ILD related to inflammatory systemic diseases, e.g. connective tissue diseases or sarcoidosis, exert an even more complex biophysical impact on the body. SUMMARY: The present review stresses goals of preventing frailty in ILD and preserving general health and well being of people living with ILD of any age, from time of diagnosis and as they age. The development of a prediction score is proposed to classify those at risk of frailty and guide interventions that preserve successful ageing for all levels of ILD severity. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/COPM/A32.

Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Interstitial Lung Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: In the past two decades, many advances have been made to our understanding of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the way we approach its treatment. Despite this, many questions remain unanswered, particularly those related to how the disease and its therapies impact outcomes that are most important to patients. There is currently a lack of guidance on how to best define and incorporate these patient-centered outcomes in ILD research. Objectives: To summarize the current state of patient-centered outcomes research in ILD, identify gaps in knowledge and research, and highlight opportunities and methods for future patient-centered research agendas in ILD. Methods: An international interdisciplinary group of experts was assembled. The group identified top patient-centered outcomes in ILD, reviewed available literature for each outcome, highlighted important discoveries and knowledge gaps, and formulated research recommendations. Results: The committee identified seven themes around patient-centered outcomes as the focus of the statement. After a review of the literature and expert committee discussion, we developed 28 research recommendations. Conclusions: Patient-centered outcomes are key to ascertaining whether and how ILD and interventions used to treat it affect the way patients feel and function in their daily lives. Ample opportunities exist to conduct additional work dedicated to elevating and incorporating patient-centered outcomes in ILD research.

Impact of COVID-19 and other infectious conditions requiring isolation on the provision of and adaptations to fundamental nursing care in hospital in terms of overall patient experience, care quality, functional ability, and treatment outcomes: systematic review.

AIM: This systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesizes the evidence on the provision of fundamental nursing care to hospitalized patients with a highly infectious virus and the effectiveness of adaptations to overcome barriers to care. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: In July 2020, we searched Medline, PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), BNI (ProQuest), WHO COVID-19 Database (https://search.bvsalud.org/) MedRxiv (https://www.medrxiv.org/), bioRxiv (https://www.biorxiv.org/) and also Google Scholar, TRIP database and NICE Evidence, forwards citation searching and reference checking of included papers, from 2016 onwards. REVIEW METHODS: We included quantitative and qualitative research reporting (i) the views, perceptions and experiences of patients who have received fundamental nursing care whilst in hospital with COVID-19, MERS, SARS, H1N1 or EVD or (ii) the views, perceptions and experiences of professional nurses and non-professionally registered care workers who have provided that care. We included review articles, commentaries, protocols and guidance documents. One reviewer performed data extraction and quality appraisal and was checked by another person. RESULTS: Of 3086 references, we included 64 articles; 19 empirical research and 45 review articles, commentaries, protocols and guidance documents spanning five pandemics. Four main themes (and 11 sub-themes) were identified. Barriers to delivering fundamental care were wearing personal protective equipment, adequate staffing, infection control procedures and emotional challenges of care. These barriers were addressed by multiple adaptations to communication, organization of care, staff support and leadership. CONCLUSION: To prepare for continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics, evaluative studies of adaptations to fundamental healthcare delivery must be prioritized to enable evidence-based care to be provided in future. IMPACT: Our review identifies the barriers nurses experience in providing fundamental care during a pandemic, highlights potential adaptations that address barriers and ensure positive healthcare experiences and draws attention to the need for evaluative research on fundamental care practices during pandemics.

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

BACKGROUND: Data 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). METHODS: Subjects 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. RESULTS: In 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). CONCLUSION: Home 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.

Outcome of Hospitalization for COVID-19 in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease. An International Multicenter Study.

Rationale: The impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) has not been established.Objectives: To assess outcomes in patients with ILD hospitalized for COVID-19 versus those without ILD in a contemporaneous age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched population.Methods: An international multicenter audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 between March 1 and May 1, 2020, was undertaken and compared with patients without ILD, obtained from the ISARIC4C (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis from non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death.Measurements and Main Results: Data from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to the hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching, patients with ILD with COVID-19 had significantly poorer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; confidence interval, 1.17-2.18; P = 0.003) than age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched controls without ILD. Patients with an FVC of <80% had an increased risk of death versus patients with FVC ≥80% (HR, 1.72; 1.05-2.83). Furthermore, obese patients with ILD had an elevated risk of death (HR, 2.27; 1.39-3.71).Conclusions: Patients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD.

Fundamental nursing care in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 virus: results from the 'COVID-NURSE' mixed methods survey into nurses' experiences of missed care and barriers to care.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients' fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care. METHODS: We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables. RESULTS: Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients' conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.

Daily Home Spirometry: An Effective Tool for Detecting Progression in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

RATIONALE: Recent clinical trial successes have created an urgent need for earlier and more sensitive endpoints of disease progression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Domiciliary spirometry permits more frequent measurement of FVC than does hospital-based assessment, which therefore affords the opportunity for a more granular insight into changes in IPF progression. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility and reliability of measuring daily FVC in individuals with IPF. METHODS: Subjects with IPF were given handheld spirometers and instruction on how to self-administer spirometry. Subjects recorded daily FEV1 and FVC for up to 490 days. Clinical assessment and hospital-based spirometry was undertaken at 6 and 12 months, and outcome data were collected for 3 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Daily spirometry was recorded by 50 subjects for a median period of 279 days (range, 13-490 d). There were 18 deaths during the active study period. Home spirometry showed excellent correlation with hospital-obtained readings. The rate of decline in FVC was highly predictive of outcome and subsequent mortality when measured at 3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.040; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.021-1.062; P ≤ 0.001), 6 months (HR, 1.024; 95% CI, 1.014-1.033; P < 0.001), and 12 months (HR, 1.012; 95% CI, 1.007-1.016; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of daily home spirometry in patients with IPF is highly clinically informative and is feasible to perform for most of these patients. The relationship between mortality and rate of change of FVC at 3 months suggests that daily FVC may be of value as a primary endpoint in short proof-of-concept IPF studies.

Unmet needs in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis-insights from patient chart review in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Two antifibrotic drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, are approved by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). In this analysis, treatment patterns of European patients with IPF were investigated to understand antifibrotic prescribing and identify unmet needs in IPF treatment practice. METHODS: Between February and March 2016, respiratory physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK participated in an online questionnaire designed to collect information on IPF treatment patterns in patients under their care. Patients were categorized as treated (received approved antifibrotics) or untreated (did not receive approved antifibrotics, but may have received other unapproved therapies). Classification of IPF diagnosis (confirmed/suspected) and severity ('mild'/'moderate'/'severe') for each patient was based on the individual physician's report. Patients' perspectives were not recorded in this study. RESULTS: In total, 290 physicians responded to the questionnaire. Overall, 54% of patients with IPF did not receive treatment with an approved antifibrotic. More patients had a confirmed IPF diagnosis in the treated (84%) versus the untreated (51%) population. Of patients with a confirmed diagnosis, 40% did not receive treatment. The treated population was younger than the untreated population (67 vs 70 years, respectively; p ≤ 0.01), with more frequent multidisciplinary team evaluation (83% vs 57%, respectively; p ≤ 0.01). A higher proportion of untreated patients had forced vital capacity > 80% at diagnosis versus treated patients. Of patients with 'mild' IPF, 71% did not receive an approved antifibrotic versus 41% and 60% of patients with 'moderate' and 'severe' IPF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of antifibrotic therapies, many European patients with confirmed IPF do not receive approved antifibrotic treatment. Importantly, there appears to be a reluctance to treat patients with 'mild' or 'stable' disease, and instead adopt a 'watch and wait' approach. More education is required to address diagnostic uncertainty, poor understanding of IPF and its treatments, and issues of treatment access. There is a need to increase physician awareness of the benefits associated with antifibrotic treatment across the spectrum of IPF severity.

Qualitative European survey of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: patients' perspectives of the disease and treatment.

BACKGROUND: 'Living with IPF and an exploration of Esbriet® - a new treatment' was an exploratory, qualitative, real-world survey of European patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) who were receiving treatment with pirfenidone prior to its commercial availability. The aim of the survey was to probe the impact of IPF on patients' quality of life; the role of healthcare professionals and caregivers; the information needs of both patients and their caregivers; and patients' perceptions of pirfenidone as a new treatment option for IPF. METHODS: Patients from the UK, Germany and Italy, with a diagnosis of IPF (duration >3 months), who were being treated with pirfenidone, were recruited from patient support groups, specialist centres and advocacy groups. Semi-structured, qualitative, in-depth patient interviews of 1-h duration were conducted by an independent researcher. Patients were initially asked about their experiences of living with IPF and then prompted to describe their experiences of taking pirfenidone. Techniques utilised included: the bubble-speech technique; the icon cards projective exercise; and the free association exercise. All interviews were transcribed and analysed by an independent researcher. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (71% male) were interviewed (mean age 68.5 years; mean time since diagnosis 3.5 years); 87% of patients reported that diagnosis took >1 year. Patients reported that IPF had a significant physical and emotional impact on their quality of life. The beneficial role played by caregivers and interstitial lung disease specialist nurses (where available) was specifically highlighted. Although most patients were keen for information on IPF, this was often of poor quality, out of date, or in English only. Patients' perceptions of pirfenidone were largely positive and associated with 'hope' but were also influenced by the level of side effects experienced. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the impact of IPF on patients' lives, and the need to adequately support both patients and their caregivers. These findings demonstrate the value of seeking patients' perspectives of a chronic disease such as IPF and how this information can be used to guide improvements in care, to best support the needs of patients with this devastating condition.