Comorbidity burden and survival in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the EMPIRE registry study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) frequently have multiple comorbidities, which may influence survival but go under-recognised in clinical practice. We therefore report comorbidity, antifibrotic treatment use and survival of patients with IPF observed in the multi-national EMPIRE registry. METHODS: For this prospective IPF cohort, demographics, comorbidities, survival and causes of death were analysed. Comorbidities were noted by the treating physician based on the patient's past medical history or as reported during follow-up. Comorbidities were defined as prevalent when noted at enrolment, or as incident when recorded during follow-up. Survival was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. Hazard ratios (HR) were adjusted for gender, age, smoking status and FVC at enrolment. RESULTS: A population of 3,580 patients with IPF from 11 Central and Eastern European countries was followed every 6 months for up to 6 years. At enrolment, 91.3% of patients reported at least one comorbidity, whereas more than one-third (37.8%) reported four or more comorbidities. Five-year survival was 53.7% in patients with no prevalent comorbidities, whereas it was 48.4%, 47.0%, 43.8% and 41.1% in patients with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 comorbidities, respectively. The presence of multiple comorbidities at enrolment was associated with significantly worse survival (log-rank test P = 0.007). Adjusted HRs indicate that risk of death was increased by 44% in patients with IPF reporting ≥ 4 comorbidities at baseline compared with no comorbidity (P = 0.021). The relationship between number of comorbidities and decreased survival was also seen in patients receiving antifibrotic treatment (63% of all patients; log-rank test P < 0.001). Comorbidity as cause of death was identified in at least 26.1% of deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with IPF demonstrate comorbidities, and many have comorbidity-related deaths. Increasing numbers of comorbidities are associated with worse survival; and this pattern is also present in patients receiving antifibrotic therapy.

The European MultiPartner IPF registry (EMPIRE): validating long-term prognostic factors in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Several registries of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have been established to better understand its natural history, though their size and duration of follow-up are limited. Here, we describe the large European MultiPartner IPF Registry (EMPIRE) and validate predictors of long-term survival in IPF. METHODS: The multinational prospective EMPIRE registry enrolled IPF patients from 48 sites in 10 Central and Eastern European countries since 2014. Survival from IPF diagnosis until death was estimated, accounting for left-truncation. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of death for prognostic factors, using restricted cubic splines to fit continuous factors. RESULTS: The cohort included 1620 patients (mean age at diagnosis 67.6 years, 71% male, 63% smoking history), including 75% enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis. Median survival was 4.5 years, with 45% surviving 5 years post-diagnosis. Compared with GAP stage I, mortality was higher with GAP stages II (HR 2.9; 95% CI: 2.3-3.7) and III (HR 4.0; 95% CI: 2.8-5.7) while, with redefined cut-offs, the corresponding HRs were 2.7 (95% CI: 1.8-4.0) and 5.8 (95% CI: 4.0-8.3) respectively. Mortality was higher with concurrent pulmonary hypertension (HR 2.0; 95% CI: 1.5-2.9) and lung cancer (HR 2.6; 95% CI: 1.3-4.9). CONCLUSIONS: EMPIRE, one of the largest long-term registries of patients with IPF, provides a more accurate confirmation of prognostic factors and co-morbidities on longer term five-year mortality. It also suggests that some fine-tuning of the indices for mortality may provide a more accurate long-term prognostic profile for these patients.

Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation Use-Practice Recommendations of the Slovak Society of Pulmonology and Phthisiology.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is increasingly used as a treatment method for patients with respiratory failure. The first recommendations for the use of NIPPV in Slovakia were developed by the Slovak Society of Pulmonology and Phthisiology in 2007 and were partially revised in 2015. New scientific evidence prompted the present update, which is based on widely accepted international guidelines and was adapted to address local needs. Important features of the present update include a classification of acute indications for NIPPV into three categories based on the level of supporting evidence, namely 1. definite indications for in-hospital use of NIPPV; 2. possible indications for in-hospital use of NIPPV; and 3. disorders and states in which in-hospital use of NIPPV is not recommended. The current update also reflects the importance of comorbid sleep-related breathing disorders and other chronic respiratory conditions, as well as the use and limitations of continuous positive airway pressure therapy. Since oxygen therapy is often administered along with NIPPV, guidance on the safe use of oxygen in NIPPV-treated patients has also been included. Also, the present update extends the range of its users, addressing the needs of specialists in pediatric respiratory medicine as a novelty.

Survival and lung function decline in patients with definite, probable and possible idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treated with pirfenidone.

BACKGROUND: There is no clear evidence whether pirfenidone has a benefit in patients with probable or possible UIP, i.e. when idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is diagnosed with a lower degree of diagnostic certainty. We report on outcomes of treatment with pirfenidone in IPF patients diagnosed with various degrees of certainty. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We followed patients in the multi-national European MultiPartner IPF Registry (EMPIRE) first seen between 2015 and 2018. Patients were assessed with HRCT, histopathology and received a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) IPF diagnosis. Endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and lung function decline. RESULTS: A total of 1626 patients were analysed, treated with either pirfenidone (N = 808) or receiving no antifibrotic treatment (N = 818). When patients treated with pirfenidone were compared to patients not receiving antifibrotic treatment, OS (one-, two- and three-year probability of survival 0.871 vs 0.798; 0.728 vs 0.632; 0.579 vs 0.556, P = 0.002), and PFS (one-, two- and three-year probability of survival 0.597 vs 0.536; 0.309 vs 0.281; 0.158 vs 0.148, P = 0.043) was higher, and FVC decline smaller (-0.073 l/yr vs -0.169 l/yr, P = 0.017). The benefit of pirfenidone on OS and PFS was also seen in patients with probable or possible IPF. CONCLUSIONS: This EMPIRE analysis confirms the favourable outcomes observed for pirfenidone treatment in patients with definitive IPF and indicates benefits also for patients with probable or possible IPF.

Differences in Baseline Characteristics and Access to Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Patients With IPF in the EMPIRE Countries.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare lung disease with poor prognosis. The diagnosis and treatment possibilities are dependent on the health systems of countries. Hence, comparison among countries is difficult due to data heterogeneity. Our aim was to analyse patients with IPF in Central and Eastern Europe using the uniform data from the European Multipartner IPF registry (EMPIRE), which at the time of analysis involved 10 countries. Newly diagnosed IPF patients (N = 2,492, between March 6, 2012 and May 12, 2020) from Czech Republic (N = 971, 39.0%), Turkey (N = 505, 20.3%), Poland (N = 285, 11.4%), Hungary (N = 216, 8.7%), Slovakia (N = 149, 6.0%), Israel (N = 120, 4.8%), Serbia (N = 95, 3.8%), Croatia (N = 87, 3.5%), Austria (N = 55, 2.2%), and Bulgaria (N = 9, 0.4%) were included, and Macedonia, while a member of the registry, was excluded from this analysis due to low number of cases (N = 5) at this timepoint. Baseline characteristics, smoking habit, comorbidities, lung function values, CO diffusion capacity, high-resolution CT (HRCT) pattern, and treatment data were analysed. Patients were significantly older in Austria than in the Czech Republic, Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia, Israel, and Serbia. Ever smokers were most common in Croatia (84.1%) and least frequent in Serbia (39.2%) and Slovakia (42.6%). The baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) was >80% in 44.6% of the patients, between 50 and 80% in 49.3%, and <50% in 6.1%. Most IPF patients with FVC >80% were registered in Poland (63%), while the least in Israel (25%). A typical usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern was present in 67.6% of all patients, ranging from 43.5% (Austria) to 77.2% (Poland). The majority of patients received antifibrotic therapy (64.5%); 37.4% used pirfenidone (range 7.4-39.8% between countries); and 34.9% nintedanib (range 12.6-56.0% between countries) treatment. In 6.8% of the cases, a therapy switch was initiated between the 2 antifibrotic agents. Significant differences in IPF patient characteristics and access to antifibrotic therapies exist in EMPIRE countries, which needs further investigation and strategies to improve and harmonize patient care and therapy availability in this region.

Anticoagulant Use and Bleeding Risk in Central European Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) Treated with Antifibrotic Therapy: Real-World Data from EMPIRE.

INTRODUCTION: Nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor, may be associated with increased bleeding risk. Thus, patients with an inherited predisposition to bleeding, or those receiving therapeutic doses of anticoagulants or high-dose antiplatelet therapy, have been excluded from clinical trials of nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine real-world bleeding events in patients with IPF treated with antifibrotics, including those receiving anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: The European MultiPartner IPF Registry (EMPIRE) enrolled 2794 patients with IPF: group A (1828: no anticoagulant or antiplatelet treatment), group B (227: anticoagulant treatment), group C (659: antiplatelet treatment), and group D (80: anticoagulant and antiplatelet treatment). Overall, 673 (24.1%) received nintedanib and 933 (33.4%) received pirfenidone. Bleeding events and their relationship to antifibrotic and anticoagulation treatment were characterized. RESULTS: Group A patients, versus those in groups B, C, and D, were typically younger and generally had the lowest comorbidity rates. A higher proportion of patients in groups A and C, versus group B, received nintedanib. Pirfenidone, most common in group D, was more evenly balanced across groups. In patients with reported bleeding events, seven of eight received nintedanib (groups A, C, and D). Bleeding incidence was 3.0, 0, 1.3, and 18.1 per 10,000 patient-years (groups A, B, C, and D, respectively). CONCLUSION: Real-world data from EMPIRE showed that patients on anticoagulant medications received nintedanib less frequently, perhaps based on its mechanism of action. Overall, bleeding incidence was low (0.29%: nintedanib 0.25%; pirfenidone 0.04%) and irrespective of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy received (P = 0.072).